“Men in Black III”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

They’re back once again to protect the earth from the scum of the universe.  Hello there everyone and thank you for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am of course movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is the highly anticipated “Men in Black III”.  This science fiction, action/adventure, fantasy, and comedy opened all over the 3 rock from the sun on May 25, 2012, and returning in the lead roles are Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.  Joining them this time onscreen are Josh Brolin, Alice Eve, Jermaine Clement, and Academy Award winner Emma Thompson.  This 3^rd installment of the “Men in Black” franchise sees it reunited with director Barry Sonnenfield, the director of the first 2, as well as the “Addams Family” movies, and “Get Shorty”.  They manage to get the entire band back together for this next chapter, but do the talents involved capture the magic of the original.

Well seeing as they’ve taken on giant bugs and defended ancient artifacts, I guess that it’s time we go back in time.  This newest chapter sees Agent J traveling back to the year 1969 where he needs to meet up with the Agent K of that time period.  Josh Brolin steps into the younger shoes of Tommy Lee Jones and joins Will Smith to try and stop an alien that has his sights set on the destruction of the planet earth.  We are once again thrown into the ultra-secret and wild world of the government agents that come with a standard issued neualizers, and are always dressed alike.  Before this tale comes to a close we will see prison breaks from the moon, time-traveling meetings with Andy Warhol, and this is also the first of the trilogy to be released in eye popping 3-D.

Well people I am going to begin with director Barry Sonnenfield.  I have always liked him as a filmmaker, and other than the fact that he makes movies usually less than 90 minutes, I can say that I have enjoyed most of his films.  Watching this movie I was very pleasantly surprised to see that Mr. Sonnenfield really hasn’t missed a beat in 10 years, because the last time he helmed a very big studio film was the last “Men in Black” feature.  He does his very best to recapture the magic of the first film skipping over the misstep known as “MIB II”.  I would bet money that he would like to neuralize the second film out of everyone’s brain.  What he gets absolutely correct is to first establish all worthy characters in the realm of flesh and blood, and not overcrowding the film with creatures that have both purple skin and 367 legs.  And even though this movie is a little longer than his normal running time, he paces the film very quickly and rarely let it run out of gas.

Now normally I don’t really enjoy the whole time traveling premise when it comes in the form of a sequel, but this “Men in Black” adventure makes use of the whole darn thing.  The 1960s were a definite and welcomed addition to the franchise, and it never seems to diminish the authentic feel of our protagonists, because they fit into every era in almost a timeless sort of way.  It’s really kind of weird because they always look the same, and no matter what the time period they never look out of place.  “MIB III” also boasts a very credible villain just like Edgar from the first feature.  Jermaine Clement isn’t just out to destroy the world as “Boris”, he is also dead set on exacting revenge from his jailer Agent K.  And it is probably no surprise to learn that this feature also contains dazzling special effects, and superior make-up & creatures from the master Rick Baker.

Now I come to the film’s strongest points in the leads of Will Smith and Josh Brolin.  Smith’s comedic timing is spot on, and his delivery is so relaxed that he actually makes his best lines seem almost effortless.  He has been absent from movie screens for about three years now, but you would never know that by watching his likability in this film.  This brings me to the scene-stealing brilliance of Josh Brolin.  He is so remarkable as the young Agent K that he is almost more Tommy Lee Jones then Tommy Lee Jones himself.  You’ll truly believe that for a second or two maybe they paid some outer space alien to sit in as Agent K, because everything down to the lines on his face, to the pitch of his voice, his performance was the film’s best asset.

I will however be the first person to say that this is far from a perfect feature, and I do have some reasons to back that up.  The biggest and most important things that are missing from “Men in Black III” are the moments of banter between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, and Tommy Lee Jones.  The man does not have but 10 or 15 minutes of screen time, which was a very big disappointment to me as well as to the rest of his fans.  Now like I said Josh Brolin was great, but there’s nothing like Tommy Lee Jones.  Then I know for certain that they started filming without a finished script and even shut down production for duration of time to complete it, and the finished product reflected these imperfections.  The entire middle of the film was sometimes leanings towards dull, and secondary characters like Michael Stuhlbarg & Alice Eve are barely given anything to do.

At 1 hour & 45 minutes “MIB III” was fine on the running time, and I even enjoyed the extra 20 minutes as compared to the first 2 films.  This is not great or an exceptional film by any means, but it is not a bad movie either.  This is definitely not a better movie than the original, but it is light years better than the last one.  This ‘Men in Black’ project is fun and adventurous, but it is the live actors that bring the core to this feature.  Will Smith and Josh Brolin work wonderfully together, and let’s just say that I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the 1960s Agent K made it to the new millennium in a part 4.  I truly had a very enjoyable time being part of this sequel, and its lighthearted entertainment and solid fun was enough for me to recommend this newest chapter.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a more than favorable 3 stars out of 4, and that’s for the return of Agents J & K & K in “Men in Black III”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Piranha 3DD”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

The prehistoric man eating fish that devoured their way to some box office glory a few years ago are back, and they are ready to wreak havoc once again on the multiplexes of America.  Hello to everyone watching and thank you once again for returning to my favorite website ReelScreenReviews.com, I am film critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Piranha 3DD”.  This horror, thriller, and sequel opened in wide release on the 1^st of June, 2012, and it stars Danielle Panabaker, David Koechner, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd, “The Hoff”, and one of the worst young actors making movies today Chris Zylka (next Casper Van Dien).  This film comes to us from director John Gulager, the previous director of the straight-to-video “Feast” from 2006.  He now gets his first crack at a big mainstream Hollywood feature if you want to call it that, but hey it has to be better than “The Darkest Hour”, or is it?

I don’t really know what I am supposed to say here?  The prehistoric fish in the first movie have maneuvered their way from Lake Victoria to a newly opened waterpark, that is appropriately titled “The Big Wet Water Park”.  I guess that just goes to show you what kind of intelligence were dealing with when it comes to this movie.  It’s pretty much the same old thing with the flesh eating fish, and notable actors even return to add ‘Credibility’ to the feature.  Let’s see, people go to a waterpark and become lunch to these man-eating fish….yeah that’s pretty much it.

Well people when I reviewed the first “Piranha 3-D” movie back in 2010 I really didn’t bash it over the head because I believed then, and still do to this day, that it definitely succeeded in what it set out to do.  Horror director Alexander Aja brought a genuinely good balance to a film that sported as much nudity as it did blood, and overlays to the whole thing with bad jokes and cheesy humor.  The graphic fun and violence started early on in the film, and once it started you are in for the relentless bloodbath that followed.  All and all the first “Piranha” film was not the bottom of the barrel that I thought that it was going to be, and that’s where this sequel comes in.

First, no matter how pathetic the project seems to be to some people, there is always an audience for this kind of film just waiting to see it, but the studio definitely picked the wrong guy to helm this feature.  Director John Gulager seems completely off the mark overseeing this project that right off the bat drastically lessens the trademark gore.  He also really didn’t seem to have any kind of knowledge on how to stage any of these scenes throughout this rather dull & boring would-be thriller.  Then the way that “Piranha 3DD” just out-and-out disrespects and exploits women was almost unbearable to me.  The sex jokes and nudity in the first film were a compliment to the outrageousness of its premise, but here it’s depiction of women was so offensive it did nothing to enhance the story, the movie, or anything else.

The biggest problem with this newest “Piranha” adventure is the missing element of the belly-laughing humor that filled the big screen for 90 minutes the first time around.  Writers Marcus Dunston & Patrick Melton have made a career churning out scripts for the latter “Saw” sequels, but here they completely missed the point.  They thought that if they just depicted one disgusting event after another, and then covered it with a couple buckets of blood that everyone would laugh, but they overlooked the glaring contradiction that what they wrote was not only not funny, it was unpleasant most of the time.  And let me make myself clear, I’m not talking about “Borat” or ‘Likable Offensive’; I’m talking about plain old,  below average crap.

If I had to pick something to complement when it comes to “Piranha 3DD”, well I could dig down deep and say thanks for all the cameos in this film.  When Richard Dreyfuss was singing “Show Me the Way to Go Home” in the beginning of the first film that was actually kind of cool, so the filmmakers this time around have stacked the deck with actors that we’ll say may be a day or two past their prime.  Gary Busey sits in for the aforementioned Richard Dreyfuss for this sequel’s beginning, and is soon joined by the likes of Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd, and “The Hoff” himself David Hasselhoff.  The great Christopher Lloyd shows up once again doing his best imitation of his own “Doc Brown”, and Ving Rhames must have really been in need of a payday to sign on for a scene that blatantly copies Robert Rodriguez’ “Planet Terror”.  Did you ever think that you would say that?  That “Planet Terror” was being blatantly copied?  Then finally there is “The Hoff” playing a spoof on his own “Baywatch” character, and he is sadly reduced to uttering lines like, “Welcome to rock bottom.”  I was both wondering and questioning if he had a sense of irony when he was speaking that line?

At only 83 minutes “Piranha 3DD” felt twice as long as that, and half as smart as the original…if that is even a possibility.  I guess these filmmakers forgot that the reason people go see horror films is to have fun.  It can be campy; the acting can be below average, and who cares about set design and art direction?  However, flesh eating monsters that ‘Don’t’ attack throughout the movie, and long periods of no killing, no blood, and no gore…well those kinds of scenes are not going to turn this into any kind of a successful franchise.   You know I am really conflicted at this point because to stand here and say that they dropped the ball with this newest installment would imply that the first one was a work of stature.  Now that’s not true, but the first chapter was fun, cheesy, and enjoyable.  This latest segment is just a cheap imitation of the first “Piranha” feature, and seeing as the first “Piranha” feature was a cheap imitation of a cheap imitation piranha movie made in 1978…than this couldn’t possibly be any kind of praise in any way.

Nick’s Reel Screen Review for this dreadful nonsense is ‘Avoid at All Costs’ with a measly ½ of 1 star out of 4.  Just do yourself a favor and never watch this film.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“What to Expect When You’re Expecting”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

One of the more famous and helpful novels of the last 25 years finally gets remade into a big-screen romantic comedy.  Hello there to everyone watching and thank you for tuning in once again to ReelScreenReviews.com, I am of course film critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “What to Expect When You’re Expecting”.  This drama and romantic comedy opened in wide release on the 18^th of May, 2012, and it stars the onscreen talents of Cameron Diaz, Elizabeth Banks, Jennifer Lopez, Anna Kendrick, Dennis Quaid, and Chris Rock.  This film comes to us from director Kirk Jones, the previous writer/director of “Waking Ned Devine”, “Everybody’s Fine”, and “Nanny McPhee”.  He now steps out of the shadow of the small film and into the world of big stars, big comedy, big summer movie, and big headache most likely.

“What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is adapted from the very popular book of the same name that was first published in 1984, and since then it has gone on to help millions of people.  This movie version tells specifically of five couples that are eventually going to be heading into the delivery room, and to the problems that come before and after birth.  Whether they are trying for a baby, not trying for a baby, or competing against one another, this film explores the trials and tribulations of being a couple that is expecting.  The film sports a big star-studded ensemble cast, and bounces back and forth between the couples and their issues.

Well people this is one of those films just like “Valentine’s Day”, and that is to say that when you are done watching it you will not know any of these dozen characters any better than you did when you started watching it.  Now I could see how a project like this would probably appeal to the actors involved, because there is no way any of them filmed for longer than one week.  There are so many people involved in this feature that there’s honestly no chance of ever getting to know anyone, and if that’s the case then why go to the movies in the first place.

I guess that it is really no shock that after “Something Borrowed” & “He’s Just Not That into You” that Tinseltown has decided to option this decade’s long bestseller to the big screen.  There are just an ungodly amount of problems and issues that go with this feature.  Every time something serious might be tackled director Kirk Jones just in turn gives us a music montage right through it.  He also never tries any kind of cinematic style, and just sort of lets the material work itself out…which by the way isn’t a good thing.  Also, the screenwriters felt the need to infuse the ‘Surprise Pregnancy’ into every storyline except one, and the one that they didn’t was the only one that felt real or true to me.  They also stockpile every overused joke and cliché about being with child, and never seem create anyone worth rooting for as parents.  “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” also boasted one of the most boring and bland musical scores I’ve ever heard, and you can credit musical composer Mark Motherbaugh for this misstep in a film full of them.

You know with as much star power as this film has it should’ve been stand out on almost every level, and this was simply below average on almost every level.  Even adding the luscious Jennifer Lopez and a sub-story involving adoption still couldn’t evoke any sort of emotion from me at all.  This aspect of the movie was written to be dramatic, but just like the rest of the project there isn’t enough of a foundation in any kind of seriousness or storytelling for this movie to ever be considered enjoyable.

As I sat down and started to tally up my notes for this project I only then began to realize how little there was to complement when it came to this movie.  The guys are okay, but of them only Chris Rock is even given anything good to say.  He is Chris Rock and brings laughs with his delivery, but none of the other guys really lends anything positive here.  Now I can’t believe that I am going to say this, but Dennis Quaid was perfectly cast as an extremely competitive father.  He has a trophy wife and announces that they too will also be expecting a child, just like his fully grown son that he always seems to want to one up.  Then I thought that the only one of the stories that wasn’t completely packed full with clichés was the plot line featuring Anna Kendrick.  I think that she is just so honest as a performer that I just love her and almost everything that she does, and to me she is the one bright spot in a film that put simply, is really not funny or memorable.

At 1 hour and 50 minutes “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is really nothing more than a really long commercial for how to deal with pregnancy.  To me the most bothersome point of this film is that it could’ve put together real situations and dealt with real problems of childbirth, and instead it strung together “Three’s Company” moments of humor.  The writers try their absolute best to incorporate drama into the story when they can, but every conflict is treated like an after-school special and resolved just as quickly.  If I had to guess I would say that fans of this book would probably not like this movie, because I think the only thing that it shares in common with the novel are the words in the title.  Every time this project could’ve made itself informative, educational, or entertaining, it just decided instead to serve up a huge dose of pregnancy clichés and stereotypes.  With absolutely nothing new given to the realm of rom-coms, adaptations, or ensemble pieces I would tell you to pass on this one, and if I would’ve known what to expect from this film, then I would’ve skipped it altogether.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is to really have no choice on this one, and to give this very weak and unfunny movie a very weak recommendation of only 1 star out of 4.

And remember people I’m not always right but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Dictator”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

The creators of “Borat” reteam for their next comedic adventure.  Hello there everyone and thank you once again for visiting ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci, and our next movie review is “The Dictator”.  This satiric comedy opened on May 16^th, 2012, and it stars Sacha Baron Cohen, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Anna Faris.  This film comes to us from director Larry Charles, the veteran TV and film director known for “Cheers”, “Will & Grace”, and the aforementioned “Borat”.  He now once again collaborates with Cohen to see if they can improve after stumbling a bit the last time out with “Bruno”.

Well this tale tells of a bizarre and ruthless dictator of an oil-rich African nation, and when anyone even remotely disagrees with him they run the risk of being beheaded.  This world leader is then called upon by the United Nations to travel to America and address the unease that is being caused by his nuclear program.  “The Dictator” also explores a man that will stop at nothing to keep his country democracy free, and where the only word needed to be spoken is ‘Oppressed’.  As this satire plays out we will encounter many supporting characters including John C. Reilly, B.J. Novak, and Megan Fox.

Well people when I saw “Borat” there was a point when absolutely nothing was happening on screen and I was laughing out loud, and during this time my friend turns to me and asks what I was laughing at.  And then turned back to him and said, “I am just wondering what the hell he is going to do next?”  And this new film “The Dictator” is right along the same level in terms of shock and sheer offensiveness.  You sit there and wonder how he could possibly top himself as the movie progresses, but as each scene passes he seems to do just that.  That being said he really has kept the status quo of graphic vulgarity that he attained in both “Bruno” & “Borat”, and even though this is very rated “R” he has also crafted something that’s very funny but safe at the same time.  “The Dictator” is also what I would describe as Cohen’s most mainstream movie with a cameo from Megan Fox, the mentioning of the Kardashians, and other pop-culture references throughout.  And this might be a stretch, but I could easily see how some could classify this as a rom-com.

Now Sasha Baron Cohen has to be likable or no one would go to see his films, but I will be the first one to say that he can really wear on an audience when going straight for 2 hours.  Now I have never personally seen anyone like this guy that will do anything to get the joke, but I think that all of his antics are absolutely necessary because it offsets some of his unlikeability.  He very much reminds me of Jim Carrey, because when he chooses to work with truly great filmmakers he is always well above average.  Here Cohen is still above average, and his “Dictator” is an over-the-top ass and giant moron.  In my opinion what makes the dictator so funny is that he doesn’t even realize what an idiot he actually is, which is funny in itself, and some of his most outrageous lines are actually and completely founded in the truth.

This is a very funny movie, and if you see it immediately after you see “What to Expect When You’re Expecting”, you will believe this to be cinematic excellence.  “The Dictator” is relentless in its pursuit to be disgusting and vulgar, but at the same time it gives us a great political satire.  With his thoughts and beliefs about feminism, social structure, and basic political correctness, this guy will have you laughing out loud.  Also, he is just a little lighter than he was with the character of “Borat”, and the good-nature I think connects with the audience as well.

This brings me to director Larry Charles and to the film technically.  It is almost difficult to critique this film because it is just so basic the way that it is put together.  This is a straightforward comedy that never even tries to be flashy or anything else.  Now even though they don’t add anything new here, what they do is make use of great writing and comedic timing.  He doesn’t try to hide the lead or contain his outrageous behavior, and after three films together he would have known completely what he was getting into in the first place.  The biggest compliment I can pay this director is how he assembles the finished product.  Mr. Charles must have to sift through hours and hours of this comedic over-the-top vulgarity, and splice it all together into this small and neat 90 minute package.

Now there are just a few things, and the first one might just be me, but it’s really like he’s trying to just top “Borat”.  When I watch Sasha Baron Cohen sometimes I just get the impression that he just wants to top his last success, and heck, you really can’t fault someone for trying to do better.  Next, the film never tackles any kind of subject matter at all.  It doesn’t even try to take on any kind of conflict, but instead serves up traditional and stereotypical characters in very funny and ridiculous situations.  Lastly, I love the sex jokes, but I could’ve done without the full frontal male nudity.

At right around 90 minutes if “The Dictator” was any longer, than I think that it would’ve started to outgrow its welcomeness.  This is a film that at almost every turn will try to get someone to get up and walk out of the theater, but chances are that they won’t because the fun definitely outweighs the offense.  Cohen is a master comedian, and at this point in his career is one of the best making movies.  His determination to bring humor to the most unfunny situations is a testament to his resolve, but he’s such a genius he usually pulls it off.  Through most of “The Dictator” you’ll be smiling when you are not laughing, and as long as you are not an old fuddy-duddy I think that you’ll have a great time with this one.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is an extremely favorable but just shy of perfect 3 ½ stars out of 4.  And that’s for the very offensive, but very funny “The Dictator”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention and.

“Red Lights”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

Psychology, parapsychology, psychic, parapsychologist, how many words that begin with the letter ‘P’ can we shove into the same film?  Hello to everyone watching and thank you once again for returning to ReelScreenReviews.com, I am of course movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Red Lights”.  This suspense and supernatural thriller is set to open either this June or July 2012, and I was fortunate enough to see this film along with a couple of other art-house features at a neighboring college.  This film stars the onscreen talents of Robert DeNiro, Sigourney Weaver, Cillian Murphy, Elizabeth Olsen, and Toby Jones.  This film comes to us from director Rodrigo Cortes the director of last year’s “Buried” with Ryan Reynolds, and he once again returns to the genre of thriller to see if he can scare up a good old frightening feature?

This tale tells of a psychologist portrayed by Sigourney Weaver, and her assistant/colleague played by Cillian Murphy, and together they globetrot around the world trying to debunk any psychic with any shred of credibility.  Then one case catches their eye and they have no choice but to investigate.  That is when renowned and reputed psychic Simon Silver returns to the limelight after a 30 year absence.  Mr. Silver is brought to vivid life by the master Robert DeNiro, and his connection to the supernatural seems to be anything but a hoax.  Before this tale concludes Mr. Silver seems to push any and all disbelievers to the brink of their sanity, but is it that thrilling for the audience?

Well people I am going to begin with what I believe to be a very credible director in Cortes.  Not only did I enjoy his previous film “Buried”, I thought it filled a unique premise with much originality.  Here he pretty much picks up right where he left off and delivers once again an above average quality project.  There is just no denying that Cortes can expertly get the most amount of suspense and strain out of each scene, and on top of that he also knows how to put a film together.  You must also credit director of photography Xavi Gimenez for working hand in hand with Cortes to piece together a film that is visually satisfying, as well as cinematically brave.  These two guys brilliantly incorporate human behavior almost as a contradiction not only to the story, but also to the layout of the film itself.

I truly believe that this is going to be the definition of the movie where every major critic bashes the crap out of it, and the general public really will seem to enjoy it.  I would wholeheartedly state for the record that if you like to have fun at horror movies, then you definitely want to see “Red Lights”.  At times it becomes an extremely credible character study of the participants involved, but make no mistake about it, that thought process will spill over into your own mind and you will be asking yourself some tough questions.  This film also seems to follow in the new and wonderful footsteps set forth by other films such as “The Awakening” & “Sinister”, and that is to say that it is a beautifully shot and well-made horror film.  These were two more of the films I saw in this would be film festival.

Another strong point of this feature is the more than solid lineup of acting ability.  Both Robert DeNiro and Sigourney Weaver are veterans of the silver screen, and both bring charisma and appeal to this entire project.  Toby Jones, Elizabeth Olsen, and Jolie Richardson also show up to lend believability and credence to their performances, but to me the standout in “Red Lights” is Cillian Murphy.  He once again steals the show just like he’s done in “Red Eye” & “28 Days Later”.  I don’t know how Cillian Murphy is not a major star because he definitely has the acting chops, and he is strong enough of a performer to hold an entire film together.

Now there were a few things.  I hope you out there didn’t think that they were going to get off that easy.  First, the movie loses a little bit as it plays out.  It’s not much, but the film definitely starts stronger than it finishes.  Which brings me to point number two, “Red Lights” tries to improve on a lackluster ending with flash and style.  It also deteriorates into more of a physical confrontation of good versus evil during the film’s 3rd act, but it did still manage to hold on to intellectual integrity throughout.  I could easily see how some would also raise issues with twists in the plot because they are truly a stretch of the imagination, and to say that the film gets away from itself once or twice wouldn’t be too far off the mark.

Now it has been a while since I have done a shout out, but I have recently come into contact with a very insightful young man and his YouTube channel “StevenHuntReviews”.  Now I don’t know if you can believe this but the critic at Stephen Hunt Reviews is named Stephen Hunt.  And let me just say that Stephen is a very nice young man that delivers very energetic, excited, and informative movie reviews.  I have recently been in contact with him, and you would be doing yourself a disservice if you did not check out Stephen and his YouTube channel StevenHuntReviews.

Now I just shy of 2 hours, “Red Lights” was probably a tad too long overall, but it is thought-provoking and entertaining enough for me to have enjoyed myself while watching.  Once again I think that director Cortes has taken what can only be described as very limited resources, and delivered a finished product that makes other big-budget horror film seem very, very small in comparison.  I can really see how this one could go either way, and if you go into this film wanting to pick it apart and genuinely not want to like it, well then you’ll already kind of have your answer.  However, if your goal is to sit back and enjoy a creepy, attentive, well-made and well-acted thriller, then make it a point to catch this feature.  I don’t know what it is, I just really like this film, and I am very interested in where this director is going next.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a more than favorable 3 stars out of 4, and that’s for Bobby DeNiro in the supernatural thriller “Red Lights”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Sinister”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A man inadvertently places himself and his family in harm’s way while digging for a good story.  Hello to everyone watching and thank you for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am film critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Sinister”.  This horror and crime thriller will open in wide release on Friday, October 5^th, 2012, this is an early review.  It stars Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, James Ransone, and former “Law & Order” District Attorney Fred Dalton Thompson.  This film comes to us from director Scott Derrickson, the director of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” with Keanu Reeves, and what I believe to be an overlooked cinematic treasure in “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”.  He now steps back into the realm of the supernatural and horror, and I can only hope that he can match the bar that he set so high with ‘Emily Rose’.

This tale tells of a journalist that is always in search of another big story, so he moves his entire family into a house where entire family was murdered.  Don’t ask me I would never do it.  Now shortly after settling into his new residence our investigative reporter soon discovers ‘Found Footage’ about what actually happened with the demise of this previous family?  It seems that these clues also reveal that this is not an isolated incident, and his own family may now be at risk.  Before this tale comes to a close our protagonist will have to figuratively replace his pen with a sword, and will he have the patience of Job to see this paranormal conflict through till the end?

Well people I got to see an early screening of “Sinister” shortly after I got to see a screening for “The Awakening”.  “The Awakening” was a decent film that could’ve been much better, but I am happy to say that “Sinister” seems to have gotten correct what the previous fell short with.  Director Scott Derrickson has picked up right where he left off with “Emily Rose”, and once again has crafted a tight and well above average thriller.  I think with this film he has catered to die-hard fans of the horror genre, but at the same time always keeps the story intelligent.  To put it in the simplest of terms, “Sinister” is definitely a film worth seeing.

What I would contribute as the biggest and most positive aspect of this project is its tenacious and unrelenting dark tone, and the film’s refusal to cave to horror clichés and happy endings.  More often than not when watching a horror film some stupid and pathetic resolution comes out of nowhere in order for Hollywood to maintain a pleasant finale, but this film makes no such excuses, nor does it even want to.  Derrickson’s pitch perfect direction keeps this project as entertaining as it is interesting.  Then he and director of photography Chris Norr have expertly blended the ‘Found footage’ and horror genres into this confining space known as a home.  They couldn’t be more straightforward with an underlying feeling of dread that is usually missing from most projects of terror, but make no mistake it is excruciatingly evident throughout “Sinister”.

Another of the film’s many positives is the performance of Ethan Hawke.  Complementing the film’s close-ups he expertly conveys the inner turmoil of a man struggling with what is morally right, and a man struggling to find the truth.  By watching this footage is he essentially exposing himself to something he was locked securely away from before he saw it?  The audience really can’t help but feel the same way, and I just love horror films that can evoke as much emotion with its audience as any drama can with theirs.  On the surface the film is very reminiscent of “8mm” and other horror films, but underneath it to me it was a lot like “Memento”.  As you sit there in the theater you can easily parallel the dissension of this character every step of the way.

Now I do actually have a few issues with this movie.  The first is how he refuses to go to the authorities with this overwhelming and damning evidence.  They do try and give credence to a back story as to his motives for not doing so, but that just didn’t hold water for me.  Next, there were just a few spots where I thought that the movie lagged here and there.  I don’t know if I would classify it as a pacing issue, but it was at least noticeable.  Lastly, of all the performances Vincent Donofrio seemed pretty much by-the-numbers with his portrayal, and seemed to me to only be there because they needed to put this character in the movie.

As this film drew to a close I felt “Sinister” to be right on with the running time, which was no surprise because it was almost perfect most of the way through.  You know with last year’s exceptional “Insidious”, “Emily Rose”, this movie, and the brand new “The Cabin in the Woods”, you can still make good horror films and I’m glad that some people still do.  Scott Derrickson not only makes great horror films he makes great films period.   This man really just knows how to bring intensity and suspense to the viewers, and he has once again effectively and strategically crafted something that will haunt you for days.  This is a scary movie that is actually scary, and it didn’t even need to be excessively graphic because the film is good enough on its own.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a very exceptional but just shy of perfect 3 ½ stars out of 4.  And that’s for the new Ethan Hawke thriller “Sinister”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Woman in the Fifth”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A college professor escapes to Paris after a scandal almost costs him everything…I guess you could say that he is the opposite of Roman Polanski.  Hello there to everyone in cyberspace and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “The Woman in the Fifth”.  This drama and thriller will open on June 15^th, 2012, this is an early review, and this feature stars Ethan Hawke, and Kristen Scott Thomas.  This film comes to us from director Pawel Pawlikowski, the director of “My Summer of Love” from 2005.  Pawel now tries to successfully adapt the novel of the same name written by Douglas Kennedy.

American writer Tom Ricks comes to Paris desperate to put his life together again, and at the same time win back the love of his estranged wife and daughter. When things don’t go according to plan he ends up in a shady hotel in the suburbs, and must work as a night guard to make ends meet. Then Margit, a beautiful and mysterious stranger walks into his life and things start looking up. Their passionate and intense relationship triggers a string of inexplicable events…almost as if an obscure power was taking control of his life.

Well people I am going to begin with just how intriguing this film actually is.  As this film plays out it almost raises just as many questions as it answers, and even when it’s over I think that many that viewed this film will say, “Huh?”  As you watch this movie you are almost forced to pay attention because the direction of the film is not told in a traditional manner.  In my opinion however this film will easily get lost to many that view it, why, because “Woman in the Fifth” chooses to serve the purpose of being a cinematic enigma before it chooses to be a straight-forward story.  Sitting there as a critic I can easily appreciate the look and feel of a small art-house feature, but I don’t think that mainstream or wide audiences will mesh with this film that easily.

Now I must credit the director Pawel Pawlikowski and the cinematographer of the film Ryszard Lenczewski.  They have been longtime collaborators when it comes to making movies, and their talent combined more than shows while watching this feature.  Together they mount the camera at very weird angles, but use this only as a means to convey the city of Paris in a completely different fashion.  In my humble opinion, these two guys specifically picked the most obscure locations of Paris to film, and by doing so give the city a completely different look and feel than we are used to seeing.  The whole thing really felt like a William Friedkin movie right out of the 1970s.

Now this brings me to the two leads, and even though this is an Ethan Hawke film, I will start with the breathtaking Kristen Scott Thomas.  Ever since I saw her grace the screen in “The English Patient” I have thought her to be one of the true beauties making movies, and at the age of 50 I still don’t think any differently.  She shines in this film as a sexy and sophisticated woman of mystery.  The chemistry that she shares with Hawke is as sensual as it is necessary to the story, and he too comes off as credible in his scenes with her.  (Like that would be difficult!)  Hawke also is not as good as his turn in “Sinister”, another mystery/thriller out later this year, but he is at least above average.

A couple of things that I thought worked against the feature.  Well for one I thought that the end of the film was a tad bit muddled, and could’ve been told in a much clearer fashion.  At around 80 or 85 minutes they could’ve easily played around much more with these characters and storyline, but choose to cut things short or not explore them to their fullest.  Also, sometimes the “Woman in the Fifth” assumes that you can connect the dots as to what is going on in the main character’s imagination, but once again I thought that this just added to the movie’s confusion.  The biggest problem that I had with this film is not how it is shot or made, it is how it is put together.  The filmmaker really should’ve thought long and hard before the editing process began, because just rearranging the scenes really could’ve helped this movie.

At 85 minutes it could’ve been a little bit longer only to develop characters a tad bit more.  However, there is no easier way to sum up “Woman in the Fifth” then to say that if you are a fan of art-house features this is a must-see.  If you like or enjoy “The Expendables”, or films more founded in entertainment, then never watch this even if it comes on free TV.  This film is relentless in its quest to be cinematically correct, but ‘Joe Blo’ the average and everyday filmgoer will most likely hate every moment of this feature.  Me, as I already stated I can sit and appreciate a well-crafted movie even if it isn’t all that entertaining, and that is why Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a mild but still favorable 2 ½ stars out of 4.  That mild recommendation is for Ethan Hawke and Kristen Scott Thomas in the beautiful but sometimes unclear “Woman in the Fifth”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Safe”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A 12 year old girl is on the run, and a retired Special Forces officer is her only chance to keep her you guessed it…safe.  Hello to everyone and my thanks once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is you guessed it…”Safe”.  This crime drama and actioneer opened on April 27^th, 2012, and it features Jason Statham, Chris Sarandon, Robert John Burke, and introduces us to youngster Catherine Chan.  “Safe” comes to us from director Boaz Yakin, the director of the previous films “Remember the Titans” and “Uptown Girls”.  He now shows even more range as a director by giving us a straight action film, having already helmed a sports film and a romantic comedy.

This tale tells of former cage and MMA fighter named Luke Wright that lost everything when he ruins the outcome of a rigged fight.  His family is killed and he is forced to live a life of anonymity, which is until the day he comes to realize that the same men that killed his wife are now after a 12 year old girl.  He refuses to stand by and watch this happen, and chooses to keeps the young girl safe from harm.  Luke soon learns that this young girl holds the key to bringing down both the Russian Mob and corrupt cops, and that they will stop at nothing to make her very, very dead.  This former fighter sees her as a last chance of redeeming his own life, and why not kill a few bad guys along the way.

Well people I am going to start with lead Jason Statham.  I like Statham, I really do, but the projects that he chooses to be part of really make me scratch my head.  He reminds me of Stephen Seagal from back in the day because he makes all of these bad movies, but when he opts to align himself with both credible costars and a director, the end result is usually very solid.  The problem with Seagal is he made 20 “Glimmer Mans” for every one “Under Siege”, and I see the same in Statham.  For every “Snatch” & “The Bank Job”, he seems to make the “Crank” trilogy (is it a trilogy?), and the “Transporter” trilogy.  Now I’m not saying that all of these are completely terrible, but aren’t they essentially all the same movie?  (no his name changed)

That being said this Jason Statham movie actually isn’t all that bad.  They all seem to accent his physique more than his acting ability, but “Safe” at least attempts to be something more.  The Manhattan background was a plus for moving the story forward in a visual manner, and at least it plays to its strengths and gives you solid doses of action.  The fight sequences are a combination of fast fists and even faster cuts, and enough bad guys get their butts whooped for any action fan to get their money’s worth.

“Safe” is tenacious when it comes to its chase scenes, and delivers more than a couple of segments of genuine shoot-em-up intensity.  Also once again the macho of Jason Statham that has worked so well in the past works just as well here.  Now don’t get me wrong this is anything but cinematic excellence, but I would say that it is worth seeing on the action alone.  The director also lends enough of a graceful touch to lift this feature above the likes of “The Darkest Hour” or “Shark Night 3-D”.

The film also lacked and needed to be filled with believable supporting actors.  What director Boaz Yakin does give this film unfortunately is a heavy dose of clichés, and he does that instead of trying to infuse the least little bit of originality into it.  The standardness of the dialogue will also stand out as pretty basic and below average, and when you add up all of these negatives, the saddest part is that you have a lead positive enough to carry this film.

Now I give them credit for incorporating a child into the story, but even that did little to accompany this film.  I just kept thinking of “Commando” with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  At that point in his career he had made many action films, so they paired him with a then very young Alyssa Milano in hopes of adding a new element into a well-used premise.  It is kind of the same thing here with this little Asian girl as the only thing different in the last 15 Jason Statham films.

At 1 hour and 35 minutes “Safe” followed a plot line as secure as its title, and an un-witty and downright dopey screen play knock this down an entire notch as well.  While watching this I did feel that Statham is a quality enough actor that he added credence to the entire redemption storyline.  And even though at the beginning of this project the premise is much stronger than while it plays out, it was truly just about everything that I expected from it.  If your hopes are to simply be entertained with a nice dose of action then you will most likely enjoy this feature, but if art-house & solid drama are more your style, then don’t even give this a chance.  Me, I’m going to split this one right down the middle.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is 2 stars out of 4, and that’s for the new but hardly fresh action thriller “Safe”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Raven”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A fictionalized thriller encompassed into the life of legendary horror author Edgar Allen Poe, and we see him getting wrapped up in an investigation of his own inspiration.  Hello there everyone and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “The Raven”.  This drama/period piece/thriller opens in wide release on Friday April 27^th, 2012, and it stars John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve, and Brendan Gleeson.  “The Raven” comes to us from director James McTeague, the man that previously directed “V for Vendetta” and the underrated “Ninja Assassin” from 2009.  This time out he takes on very well-known stories from one of the most well-known writers, and can he deliver solid thrills and chills wrapped up in a quality feature film?

This tale tells of writer Edgar Allen Poe that must put down his pen and pick up as a ‘Would-Be’ detective.  A young Baltimore police investigator enlists the help of the crime author in order to solve a series of crimes that have come to the forefront of law enforcement.  Detective Emmett Fields portrayed by Luke Evans soon come to the realization that these brutal acts vividly mirror the stories put to paper by Mr. Poe.  At first thought to be the mastermind and perpetrator of the wrongdoings he is soon cleared and then looked upon by the police for any assistance that he can give.  It will all come to a boil when the writer’s family and close friends become the target of the madman’s bloody rampage, and will he be able to stop this madman before it’s too late?

Well people the first and biggest adjective that I would use to describe “Raven” is unfortunately disappointing.  I must admit that I was kind of drawn to this film because of the marketing campaign, and I was genuinely fired up to go see this film.  However this feature, just like the recent “Battleship”, has so many holes in the storyline that it just can’t be overlooked.  To me sitting in the audience it’s almost as if the writers really didn’t even care to reasonably explain anything that they wrote.  Situations are discussed between Poe and Det. Who-Gives-A-Crap, but I think that these scenes only make sense to the two men that are speaking in them.

Now normally I enjoy the features of James McTeague.  I liked “V for Vendetta”, and as I said before I even thought that the blood soaked “Ninja Assassin” really wasn’t all that bad.  The problem that plagues the features of this director is that he is much more concerned about his look or visual style with the camera, then he ever is about telling a quality or linear story.  At least in the movie “Se7en” you come into these atrocities after they have taken place, but director David Fincher just let your imagination run wild with that.  McTeague and “Raven” deliver no such imagination, and no such originality.  It simply stifles together one implausible scene after another, and doesn’t even bother to try and connect the logical dots.

Now something that really got to me was that they never explore Edgar Allen Poe the writer, and simply give us this stereotypical cinematic hero.  Cusack somewhat resembles this literary legend, but he is much too full in the face and seems unreasonably healthy for someone approaching death’s door.  I gently researched the real author and found Poe to be an alcoholic and an opium addict, and Cusack does little to bring any of that the life besides yelling frequently while pretending to be at wits end.

The biggest issue with “Raven”, and what hurts this feature more than anything else, is the dialogue in the movie doesn’t fit the time period.  There are spoken words and/or phrases that are decades out of place, if not by a century.  Also the way that people spoke just seemed phony.  A perfect example is in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” where Costner’s accent comes and goes, and because of that verbal misstep, that entire feature suffers.  This is very similar; I just can’t narrow it down to be that specific.  Somehow the dialogue just seemed wrong to me.

The best aspects of “Raven” are its costumes and the location.  I believe I read that they shot this film in Hungary and Serbia, I don’t know but that was a very big plus for the film.  These locales expertly conveyed the look and feel of the time period, and as I stated, the outfits also added to this project.  Just think in terms of “Sweeney Todd”, “Sleepy Hollow”, “From Hell”, or any other time period piece that stars Johnny Depp, and you’ll get the idea.  However, that is about all I really have to complement.

At 1 hour and 50 minutes “Raven” was too long on running time, and much too long on being far-fetched.  The worst part of this whole theatrical experience is that I really wanted to like this movie, and this movie really gave me nothing to like.  When you bring together John Cusack as the legendary Edgar Allen Poe, serial killers, and the time period thriller…well this should have been a recipe for greatness, and in the end it all came together like a sardine omelette for breakfast.  I have heard many compare this to the recent Robert Downey Jr. reboot of the “Sherlock Holmes” franchise, but both of those films are light-years more entertaining than this ever was.  “Raven” is not absolutely terrible filmmaking, but at the same time it does very little to make itself appealing to an audience.  Outside of being visually striking this film doesn’t really have a handle on any kind of narrative story, or the characters within it.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a very disappointing 1 ½ stars out of 4.  And that is for John Cusack in the new horror and would be thriller “Raven”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

 “The Avengers”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Ironman come together to save our world from some out of this world baddies.  Hello there and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci, and our next movie review is highly anticipated Marvel Studio’s “The Avengers”.  Geeks around the world will rejoice on Friday May 4^th, 2012, when they see big guns Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, and Samuel L. Jackson.  “The Avengers” comes to us from the perfect man to helm this feature and that would be Joss Whedon, who could easily be considered one of the more creative people in Hollywood and has been for the last 15 years (Joss not Josh).  He now brings together the all-star team everyone has been waiting for to officially start off the summer movie season with a bang….well with many bangs actually.

This tale tells of an enemy that surfaces around the earth and soon proves to be a danger to the entire planet.  The agency of S.H.I.E.L.D., led by Nick Fury, must now live up to their reputation of keeping the world safe and finds them in need of some assistance.  Then a globetrotting expedition ensues in hopes of recruiting the heroes needed to match the assailants threatening our way of life.  Now before our heroes can join together and battle this common enemy they must first work through some differences and egos of their own, and this is no easy task.  Explosive conflicts then find their way into the movie when good and evil clash for power, and will the human beings of the planet earth survive this battle of the Gods?

Well people all I can say is if there was ever a movie that is wholeheartedly ‘Critic-Proof’ then “The Avengers” is definitely that film.  I could stand here and tell you to save your money or don’t go see this, but no one cares what anyone thinks about “The Avengers”, everyone just wants to see it for themselves.  And that is really how I feel about this film; this is a must-see for any gender, race, or age group.

Now I am going to start with Joss Whedon, and in his hands this entire project comes together like a magical conjunction simply because he is in control of it.  Leave it to the creator of TVs “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” to take all of these solo elements and characters, and intertwine them into almost 2 ½ hours of ‘Oh My Gosh’ entertainment (Gosh not Goss).  They may have been attempting to create a superhero film, but what they accomplished is one of the best standalone action adventures…ever.  In the coming weeks this will be compared to “Spiderman 2”, “The Dark Knight”, & “Superman: The Movie”, because just like those this is an actual film incorporated into the world of superheroes.  “The Avengers” is cinematic excellence that will be regarded as much more than a summer popcorn flick.

One of the most amazing aspects of this film is how nobody is left out or shortchanged.  For the life of me I cannot figure out how the filmmakers allowed for everyone to shine multiple times throughout, and still come off with these being authentic characters and individuals.  Also the fraternity fun amongst the team members also added to the entertainment.  Whether trying to one up each other with superpowers, or with smart remarks, the interaction between the leads was just great.  When I think of huge movies, and make no mistake about it this is the mostest hugest movie that I can think of, it usually falls too far in one direction or gets lost in subplots, but not this time.  “The Avengers” is a perfect blend and balance of all the talents involved, and no one is left out or wasted.

How does the action satisfying in this film?  The adventure, explosions, and superhero warfare was as unrelenting as it was impressive, and it rarely stops long enough for you to catch your breath.  This film will play lovingly to the fan boys and/or geeks, but if you have never heard of any of these characters, well I would still venture to say that this would most likely be a dead bang winner in almost anyone’s book.  On top of everything else this is a smart and intelligent movie that never insults the intellect of the viewers.  There are moments where this film almost comes to a figurative halt, and then forces the audience to not only comprehend the situation being told, but also think about the way that the world actually works.  Who would have thought that it would come in the form of a popcorn summer movie?

At 2 hours and 22 minutes some might complain that “The Avengers” was too long, but that would not be me.  With the entire fan base of all of these famous characters, and all of the differences in the actors themselves, it’s truly amazing that this has come together so brilliantly.  When Marvel started this journey with “Ironman” & “The Hulk” a couple of years ago I don’t think that anyone could’ve imagined just how all of this would’ve played out, but looking back I don’t think they made a wrong move leading up to this point.  They assembled each character in their own story, and then connected the dots to create this “WrestleMania” of a superhero film.  Sometimes in Hollywood, which by the way rarely happens, the perfect cast comes together and start speaking lines from a perfect script, and then the perfect director comes along to oversee this project to fruition.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a, you guessed it, perfect 4 stars out of 4.  And that is for the absolute must-see start of the summer movie season, the Marvel superhero All-Star team known as “The Avengers”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“The Pirates!  Band of Misfits”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

Is our next movie a waste of time, or is it ‘Arrrguably’ one of the better family films of the year?  Hello there everyone I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci as always for the website ReelScreenreviews.com and our next movie review is “The Pirates!  Band of Misfits”.  The animated adventure opened on April 27^th, 2012, and it features the voice talents of Hugh Grant, Jeremy Piven, Salma Hayek, David Tennant, and Imelda Staunton.  “Pirates” comes to us from the directing duo of Peter Lord & Jeff Newitt, and together they team up to try and bring us a boat load of humor and fun.

This tale is a pretty simple one seeing a pirate captain that is seeking to win the coveted “Pirate of the Year Award”.  Our main captain couldn’t be more enthusiastic or excited about his profession, but his ratio on success ranks a little less than his passion for his job.  He loathes his fellow rival captains including ‘Black Bellamy’, ‘Cutlass Liz’, and he will need to avoid the not-so-nice queen voiced by Imelda Staunton.  Along the way some of the only help that he will get is from a young scientist that knows a little about science, but almost nothing about life.  In the end this band of misfits will endure high adventure along the high seas, and even bigger laughs in or out of port.

Well people I am normally not a fan of the whole Claymation and stop motion animation, but this “Pirates” movie is nothing short of a treasure…get it, I’m so witty.  This movie is fresh and fun, and the directing duo abandons the fancy computer imagery used on both “Arthur Christmas” and “Flushed Away”.  For this movie they rely on a much more primitive form of animation, but they sacrifice none of the substance of the story or the entertainment value.  I also have never been a very big fan of “Wallace & Gromit”, but once again “Pirates” I believe expands its audience by incorporating more jokes then just for the very young.  Also worth mentioning and commending I might add is the excellent use of worthy lessons being infused into the plot.  Just the fact that the film deals with real issues like the importance of friendship and bettering oneself, and brings those messages to children, well that earns a plus in my book.

Now I could be wrong but I truly never remember Hugh Grant ever doing voiceover work on screen, and after watching this ‘Band of Misfits’ I cannot figure out why?  Over his 20 years as a very popular and comedic actor no director has ever utilized his talent for the use of animation, and shame on all of them.  Grant owns this movie and beautifully and expertly captures the spirit of true family comedy.  Brendan Gleeson is hilarious as a pirate dumber than a box of rocks, and others such as Selma Hayek, David Tennant, and Jeremy Piven also add many laughs and much humor to a story layered with all of that already.

Something else that stood out as a positive was how the filmmakers through in just as much, if not more, humor for adults as they did for little children.  Disney & Pixar have always seemed to have a stranglehold on this concept, but the writers and creators of “Pirates” can now lay claim to that strategy as well.  From the ‘Elephant Man’, to the names of street signs, to Jane Austen, this film had a lot of laughter in mind for mature audience as it was being created.  Something else that comes to mind are the big an elaborate sequences that are brought to vivid life in this film.  Spectacular could easily define many scenes, but the best and most memorable comes when a pirate named ‘Black Bellamy’ makes his grand entrance accompanied by a whale so to speak.

As usual I do have a few nitpicky things that I have to address.  I think that the narrative suffered a little bit because it takes so much time and effort to visually tell this tale, but I don’t think that 8 -year-olds are going to mind all that much.  Also there was a pirate that was always wearing a scarf, and I really thought this character to be squandered because they never really gave him anything to say.  There is also a romance and a rivalry introduced into the story that is never fully explored.

At 88 minutes “The Pirates!  Band of Misfits” was really nothing short of a breath of fresh air, and had me laughing most of the way through.  It is a goofy, silly, and fun romp through the high seas, and pure delight comes to mind when attempting to sum this all up.  This is also a film that just carries itself and if you don’t see it in 3-D I don’t think that it will hurt a bit, because gimmicks can ruin or improve on above average quality.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a highly recommended 3 ½ stars out of four, and that’s for Hugh Grant in the family friendly adventure “The Pirates! Band of Misfits”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“The Cold Light of Day”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A young man is pushed to the limit and will go to every length to save his family in our next adventure.  Hello there to everyone in cyberspace as always for ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci, and our next movie review is “The Cold Light of Day”.  This drama and thriller opened in wide release on Friday April 6^th, 2012, and it stars the soon-to-be new Superman Henry Cavill, Sigourney Weaver, Caroline Goodall, and Bruce Willis.  “The Cold Light of Day” comes to us from director Mabrouk El Mechri, the writer/director of “JCVD” staring of course Jean Claude Van Damme.  He now sets his sights on and attempts to tackle a Hollywood feature film, this time complete with Hollywood stars that are actually still popular when it is being released.

This tale tells of a young hot shot Wall Street trader named Will Shaw portrayed by Henry Cavill.  He is on vacation with family touring about Spain, and then the relaxing paradise all comes to a screeching halt when Will’s family is kidnapped.  The normal everyday citizen now finds himself thrust into the deepest realms of a government conspiracy, and he will have to uncover secrets that will soon lead him to his own father.  Now the clock is ticking as Will must abandon everything that he learned on Wall Street, and as this tale plays out he will soon get a crash course in survival of the fittest.

Well people “The Cold Light of Day” is a below average thriller at best, and unfortunately I once again am left feeling shortchanged by the performance of Henry Cavill.  If his portrayal was anymore wooden or stiff then he could easily be compared to ‘Bernie’ from “Weekend at Bernie’s”, and the lack of conviction while speaking every line was in direct contrast with any basic movie hero.  It never mattered once what Joe Don Baker ever said in any of the “Walking Tall” films.  Why, because he was such a presence, or everything that Henry Cavill is not in this movie.  There have been times previous when I’ll say that it is not the actor’s fault because it is the film itself that is lackluster, however this is not one of those times.  When you sign the contract to headline a Hollywood film you gotta ‘Bring the Goods’, and if the lead doesn’t do just that, then the entire film will suffer as it has here.

There were some other things that stood out to me, like for one, where the hell was Bruce Willis?  To anyone being sold on this movie by the name of Bruce Willis please be forewarned that he is only in the movie for about 10 or 15 minutes.  He vanishes early on as do all of the fun, excitement, and thrills.  To say that this film lacks suspense would be an understatement, it is actually tiresome in many spots, and “Cold Light of Day” sports some of the most boring car chases that I have ever seen.  When you watch the movie please pay close attention because it’s almost like the so-called car chases are filmed at the federally mandated speed limit, and if they were going any slower they could’ve filmed them in a school zone.  Wow, how exciting is that?

You can also clearly tell that not only was this a first time filmmaker, he really doesn’t yet have a grasp on how to put a film together.  Now I don’t know if it was a problem with the shooting schedule, or maybe they just ran out of money, but most of the evening scenes were just gloomy, unintelligible, and plain hard to watch.  Also, maybe this guy thinks moving the camera through a bullet hole is ‘Really Cool’, but if that’s the best you’ve got to carry this film then I would be worried if I was you.  Paul Greengrass you are not, and now that I think about it Simon West you are not either.

There are actually very few things for which to pay admiration when it comes to “The Cold Light of Day”, but some things did stand out.  Well for one the performance of Sigourney Weaver was devilishly fun, and you could see that she was having fun with it.  She delivers little complexity when it comes to her portrayal, and delivers a lot of destruction when it comes to Madrid and its bystanders.  Speaking of Madrid, it is to this movie what the French Riviera was to “The Killers” with Katherine Heigl, and that would be the best part of it.  The locale shots are accented beautifully by the director, I guess he got one thing right, and Madrid was about the only thing in this film worth watching.  Oh there was also the performance from Colm Meaney that was, I believe, two lines of dialogue.  That honestly made me laugh.

At 1 hour and 33 minutes “The Cold Light of Day” was pretty much a week if not cheap imitation of the ‘Bourne’ franchise.  Even though this film boasts a slew of credible names on the marquee, I beg you not to be taken in by this film that wastes the talents of these performers, and the time of those in attendance.  After seeing “The Immortals” and now this, well let’s just say that every time I see Henry Cavill onscreen I just think a little less of him than I did before.  When watching a feature and the background and/or scenery begins to overshadow the performance of the lead actor, well that really can’t be saying very much for the project at all.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is an anorexic 1 star out of 4, and that’s for Henry Cavill in “The Bourne Rip-Off”…I mean “The Cold Light of Day”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention

“Lockout”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

“Escape from New York” collides with “Demolition Man” in our next movie review.  Hello there to everyone in cyberspace I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci as always for ReelScreenReviews.com, and our next movie review is “Lockout”.  This Sci-Fi and thriller opened around the nation on Friday April 13^th, 2012, and it stars Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, and Peter Stormare.  “Lockout” comes to us from the directing team of James Mather & Steven St. Leger, the duo that brought us the short film “Prey Alone”.  They now make the jump to Hollywood feature, but do they deliver one of quality?  We’ll get back to that.

This tale deals with the world’s worst criminals in the most out-of-this-world penitentiary.  The most dangerous criminals are housed 250,000 feet above the planet in an orbiting space station, and they are kept calm and in hibernation by detailed systems that outline a healthy but induced means of sleep.  All is well until an accident leads to the uprising and eventual takeover of the prison by the inmates that can only be described as “The Worst of the Worst”.  Through all of this there is still time for our wrongly convicted anti-hero to make deals for freedom, and gee-wiz it only entails saving the President’s daughter from the aforementioned floating space prison….wow!

Well people the biggest problem that I have with “Lockout” is the same problem that I think everyone has with it, it’s a complete and utter rip-off of the John Carpenter/Kurt Russell now classic “Escape from New York”.  “Lockout” has three credited screenwriters that were able to produce this script from, get this ‘An original idea from Luc Besson’.  I really don’t know how they can claim that because honestly nothing could be further from the truth.  I mean down to naming the main renegade antihero ‘Snow’ instead of ‘Snake’ and the hostage being part of the first family, the last word that I would ever use to describe “Lockout” is original.

Now I will say that the opening sequence was really quite promising, unfortunately the rest of the film never kept the bar that high the rest of the time.  The space shots looked cool and were filmed pretty clear, but the Michael Bay school of action editing ruined any potential those scenes had.  Guy Pearce is almost always above average and his performance here is no different, and I believe that his portrayal as ‘Snow’ was the only thing that kept this project hovering over the 1 star rating.  However even as the film played on his smart aleck comments really started to lose some of their zip, but I would be lying if I didn’t say that he had me out-and-out laughing out loud more than a few times with his wisecracks.  I will also say that at least the movie gets a boost from the credible acting of the supporting players including Lennie James, Vincent Regan, and the very creepy Joseph Gilgum.

Unfortunately there are so many issues with “Lockout” that stand out and I’m going to try to make this right to the point.  The films editing is scattered to say the least, and the lighting on the film is so bad that I began to question whether light bulbs were in the film’s budget or not.  The writing on the movie is well below any sort of standard, and that to me is the most disappointing of anything with this project.  With the tiniest level of energy this story could’ve been outlined drastically better, and the directors were just as lazy in my opinion.  This directing team filled the running time with science-fiction flimflam, and action segments so choppy you’ll think that they watched “The Blair Witch Project” for inspiration on how to do it.

Now sometimes when I watch a film I actually sit back and wonder how so many reasonable adults can all come together to produce something that doesn’t even make any sense.  “Lockout” sports a scene that shows two people that parachute down to earth from outer space.  They pass through earth’s atmosphere without a heat shield, and come out landing gently on an overpass.  Even funnier than that is when they land authorities and assistance are almost immediately waiting for them.  I don’t mean to be nit-picky but they fell from space which means that they could’ve fallen anywhere on the planet, so how did all of these people know that they were going to be landing on the 9th St. Bridge?

At 95 minutes “Lockout” couldn’t have been any longer because they couldn’t even fill this amount of time with any sort of substance.  What I would recommend to others is that you are a diehard science fiction or space/action fan…well then yes go ahead and check out this film.  However if you are somebody that enjoys an intelligent story surrounded by beautiful photography then you definitely want to pass on this one at the multiplex.  This is just a bunch a Hollywood clichés surrounded by cheap explosions, and when you add it all together you unfortunately get a whole lotta nothing.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review for this very unfavorable film is a very unfavorable 1 ½ stars out of 4.  And that’s for the ‘Would-Be’ science-fiction adventure “Lockout”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention

“Battleship”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A famous Milton-Bradley board game comes to vivid life in the new adventure from Universal Pictures.  Hello there everybody and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am of course movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Battleship”.  This high seas actioneer will open in worldwide release on May 18^th, 2012, this is an early review.  This film stars Alexander Skarsgard, Taylor Kitsch, Rihanna, and the always solid Liam Neeson.  “Battleship” comes to us from producer and director Peter Berg, the director of “The Rundown”, “Friday Night Lights”, and “Hancock”.  He once again turns to big action in a summer movie, but this time he’s bringing battleships, aircraft carriers, and anything else that will make the oceans explosive.

This tale sees a couple members of a couple of different families that are intertwined into a story involving action along the high seas, and invasions from the skies above.  A more than superior force is once again invading earth and it is up to our Navy to bring their reign of terror to an end.  This struggle for survival will have these invaders attempting to rid the earth of its natural resources, which once again is something that we’ve never heard of before.  Before this tale comes to a close we will see a small band of naval ships making a stance against the powerful enemy, and standing up for our planet and the good of all mankind.

Well people normally I like Peter Berg as a filmmaker.  I thoroughly enjoyed “The Rundown” and think that “Friday Night Lights” is well above average.  Why, because the depth of characters in those stories naturally brings out the drama.  Here however he abandons any and all sense of drama, character development, and even linear storytelling.  He is all over the place with this movie, and the only thing consistent about it is that he filled the entire feature with supermodels.  How ironic Peter Berg has pieced together a movie based on a board game, because he has created what I would definitely call a bored movie.

Now there are very few things to even compliment when it comes to “Battleship” but here goes.  The over-the-top action and special effects were very cool to see on the big screen, but there wasn’t enough of it to save this feature.  There were long and very boring spots in between the action segments with nothing to hold your attention when explosions weren’t being detonated.  The performances weren’t terrible, it’s just that the film itself is so underwritten.  Actors can’t create or develop sympathy, sincerity, or any form of character if it isn’t written for them to do so.  Rihanna, much to my surprise, wasn’t terrible, but she as well as Liam Neeson really didn’t have much to do in the first place.  Also Taylor Kitsch is once again as likable as he was in “John Carter”, but at least in “John Carter” he had the opportunity to bring to life a real person and character.

Now what I believe to be one of the biggest problems with “Battleship” is that it is based on a board game.  When I was younger, myself and others my age grew up on a steady diet of board games.  Trivial Pursuit, Scrabble, Monopoly, and Battleship always managed to find their way into everyone’s closet, but nowadays children’s bedrooms are filled with PlayStation’s, laptops, and iPods…and that being said, I’m not sure if many in the target audience are even going to identify with the brand name.  To take it a step further I never thought Battleship to even be that fun among board games.  It was two people sitting in the same spot for a duration of time with very little happening, and anyone that figured to make a tent pole summer film based on that should’ve really thought the matter through.

You know I really hate to just shred a movie, but sometimes there is really just no helping it.  I honestly respect that they cast real Navy veterans in the film, but just like the recent “Act of Valor” this is nothing more than a big, loud, noisy commercial for how great the United States Navy is.  It’s not almost ridiculous in spots, it’s actually ridiculous in many spots, and I for one really didn’t want to sit through a two-hour naval recruiting video.  “Battleship” plays out like a propaganda film of World War II, and that just got on my nerves.

Okay I know that most big action films are usually lights on intellect, but in the simplest of terms, the technology used by the aliens doesn’t even make any sense at all.  To anyone watching with an actively working brain, you will find so many holes in the plot that you will actually just concede that it’s part of the feature.  I mean think about that, ‘Making No Sense’ is part of the feature.  They leave so many things open and unexplained that I just don’t know how else we are supposed to take it.

At 2 hours and 9 minutes “Battleship” was excruciatingly too long and I couldn’t even wait for it to end.  I really have never seen a movie where to describe it with the word ‘Dumb’ would be a compliment.  Well I guess there’s “Dumb and Dumber”.  This film however is not a comedy, what it is an exercise in futility of brain function, and nothing more than a mental waste of time.  People complained about the dialogue from the movie “The Devil Inside” going back to the first week of this year, but at least the dialogue from that film followed a specific train of thought.  Some of the stupidest lines of dialogue that I have ever heard were spoken in the movie “Battleship”, and the only thing they really connected was one uninteresting scene after another.  To me this was absolute dread that just got worse as it played out, and to sum it all up in one word, ‘Miss’!  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is placing this just above ‘Avoid at All Costs’ with a very weak 1 star out of 4.  And that’s for the adaptation of the board game “Battleship”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“The Awakening”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A woman begins to question her own beliefs and sanity when she investigates supernatural events at creepy boarding school.  Hello to everyone watching and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com, I am film critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “The Awakening”.  This horror and supernatural thriller opened in limited release in early 2012, and it stars the onscreen talents of Rebecca Hall, Dominic West, and Imelda Staunton.  This film comes to us from director Nick Murphy, a first-time writer and filmmaker that now attempts to make his mark in the genre of suspense and thriller.

This tale tells us of a story circa 1921 and takes place across the Atlantic in England.  The world is still grieving over the events of World War I, and in this time Florence Cathcart has come to disprove the existence of the supernatural at a boarding school.  The problem is the more she seems to investigate, the more she begins to doubt her own beliefs as to what is real and what is “X-Files”.  Now as this tale plays out Florence will be drawn deeper and deeper into an inescapable encounter, and all that she knows and believes will be cast aside in favor of a new and terrifying existence.

Well people “The Awakening” is the anomaly of horror and terror projects.  This is a horror film that contains acting that is well above average, and is surrounded in a very cool old-fashioned classic setting if you would.  Elegant is really the term that I would use to describe how this movie looks visually, and all of the jumps and scares seem to be almost strategically placed.

I have been a fan of Rebecca Hall ever since I saw the “Red Riding” trilogy, and after seeing her in “The Town” & now this, I’m only becoming more of a fan.  She brings much more conviction to this film than your typical scream queen, and at least she has more to do then become the standard damsel in distress.  Ms. Hall’s performance is excellent and easily the film’s strongest aspect.  Imelda Staunton also adds credibility to the personality of the school matron, and brings more depth of character to a role that could’ve been wasted in the hands of a lesser talented performer.  Then I have always enjoyed Dominic West and he once again proves himself worthy of compliments.  His performance must sway from adversary to ally with our protagonist, and he definitely has a lot of range as a character actor.

Now the main and biggest problem with “The Awakening” is the very familiar and ludicrous revelation that is the film’s ending.  Some could easily classify this as barely better than “The Haunting” or your basic ghost story.  As this tale progresses it leads to an ending that is not only unshocking, it’s basic and standardness contradicts what else was a really good film.  I also felt like some scenes were out-and-out copied from other films the likes of “The Others” or “The Changeling”.  There was also the addition of certain subplots that are either never fully explained or never fully resolved, and those were really very  annoying.

My last issue with “The Awakening” is the exact same issue that I had with “Super 8”.  “Super 8” spent every moment trying to capture the essence of a Spielberg adventure from decades past.  This film attempts to accomplish that same goal in the genre of the ghost story, but in my opinion both films falter because of one main reason.  They pour so much time and effort into capturing this essence of a movie, and then the finished product absolutely loses because it lacks in the substance department.

At 1 hour and 47 minutes “The Awakening” only started to feel lengthy when it started to lose its intelligence.  This is a solid film that could’ve been a great film only if there could’ve been a stronger brain behind the pen.  The movie is brilliantly photographed by Eduard Grau, and Daniel Pemberton’s haunting score was also a welcomed addition.  “The Awakening” for me at least lived up to its namesake and didn’t put me to sleep.  However I really think that this is a film that might play to audiences better at home on DVD with their surround systems, then it is ever going to at a multiplex.  Now even though I have many issues with this feature there are still more than enough things to like about it, and the performances are worth the ticket price.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a generous but still recommended 2 ½ stars out of 4.  And that’s for Rebecca Hall in the new ghost story “The Awakening”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Three Stooges”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

Moe, Larry, and Curly make their way to the silver screen for the first time in decades. Hello there to everyone in the land of cyberspace I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci as always for the website ReelScreenReviews.com, and our next movie review is “The Three Stooges”.  After quite a long road in development this movie has finally opened on April 13^th, 2012, and stepping into the iconic and world renowned characters of Moe, Larry, & Curly are Chris with a really long Greek last name, Sean Hayes, and Will Sasso.  “The Three Stooges” comes to us from the Farrelly Brothers, long time comedy filmmakers that have brought us “Dumb & Dumber”, “There’s Something About Mary”,  and “Kingpin”.  They now finally get a chance to bring the stooges into the new millennium, and serve them up to the next generation of fans.

Now I love that this is not a biopic and just an adventure for the “Three Stooges” that takes place in the modern and present day.  This adventure is obviously based on the very physical comedy of Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Jerome “Curly” Howard, and divided into roughly three 25-minute segments.  There really isn’t much to the storyline other than your occasional murder plot and appearing on a famous reality show, and still having enough time left over to save the childhood home that the 3 grew up in.  I really don’t know what to say they’re the “Three Stooges”, there’s finger poking, kicking, slapping, and a whole lotta nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.

Well people I know that the Farrelly brothers lobbied long and hard for years to make this project, and did so very unsuccessfully.  Then about 2 years ago they came very close to seeing it happen with Benico Del Toro, Sean Penn, and Jim Carrey, but that fell through as well.  They made one last ditch effort to pull it all together, and the end result is actually well worth seeing.  Much to my pleasant surprise this updated rendition of “The Three Stooges” is a very funny movie.

Throughout the entire running time the feature always remains entertaining, and I could tell that the Farrelly brothers must have a genuine passion for these characters going way back.  Their attention to detail while putting the film together was also a plus as well.  It’s almost as if they went out of their way to make some scenes look deliberately fake, and believe it or not, it actually helped the film because it very much paid homage to the original films by doing this.  Also the few but needed special effects were very well-placed and choreographed.  The sound effects were right on the mark, and they kept the movie quickly paced just as it needed to be.

Now before I get to Moe, Larry, and Curly, as adults that is, I must touch upon this briefly.  The much younger versions of our stooges are absolutely great, and I sat back pondering if these preteens could hold an entire feature all their own.  What else was a positive was the wide range of supporting players that just ‘Go with the Stooge Flow’.  Everyone from Catholic nuns to the cast of the “Jersey Shore” actually lend appeal and genuine fun to the story, and never once does anyone ever question the sheer nonsense of these complete and utter morons.

Moving on to the 3 leads.  While they might not have been the names that were originally wanted or desired, Will Sasso, Chris with a really long Greek last name, and Sean Hayes fell into these 3 iconic and memorable roles rather seamlessly.  I honestly can’t imagine these bigger names doing any better of a job and these guys did, and it’s not just the mannerisms that have been displayed so predominantly in the TV spots.  These 3 guys really have an absolute handle on the voices, the speech patterns, and don’t forget the spot on addition of comedic timing.  Also, just like the guys of “Horrible Bosses”, they never try to compete against one another while onscreen.  They work in cooperation and not in competition with each other, and because of that the entire project is much funnier than it would have been otherwise.

At just 85 minutes “The Three Stooges” was absolutely fine and didn’t need to be any longer than it was.  My guest critic Chris Bucci said that when he watched the “Muppets” that it brought him back to a place in his childhood, and that’s kind of how I felt when watching this film.  Now don’t get me wrong it didn’t bring me back to a special place in my life, but what it did do is make me laugh like I was 12 years old once again.  This is a very physical movie filled with a lot of physical comedy, but it never stoops to the level of other disasters the likes of “Freddy Got Fingered” or even “Norbit”.  This is the kind of film that anyone of any age can have fun watching; you just need to check your brain at the door and ‘Go with the Stooge Flow’.  I believe that the filmmakers more than succeeded in what they set out to do, and I had a great time sitting through it.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a very favorable 3 stars out of 4, and that is for the new and updated version of “The Three Stooges”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“A Little Bit of Heaven”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

We once again revisit the premise that made “Love Story” so memorable and timeless over 40 years ago.  Hello there to everyone in cyberspace and welcome back once again to ReelScreenReviews.com, I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “A Little Bit of Heaven”.  This romance and dramedy opened oversees last year and in limited release state side over the last few months, this is an early review.  It opens in wide release on Friday May 4^th, 2012, and it features the onscreen talents of Kate Hudson, Geal Garcia Bernal, Kathy Bates, Whoopi Goldberg, and Peter Dinklage.  This film comes to us from director Nicole Kassell, the writer and director of “The Woodsman” from 2004, and the upcoming “The Bell Jar” now in preproduction.  She now tries to follow in the footsteps of Seth Rogen and Joseph Gordon Levitt by putting a comedic spin on a serious subject.

This tale tells of Kate Hudson portraying a very lively character that learns that she has been afflicted with cancer.  Having always had a very positive outlook on life Kate Hudson’s Marley decides to hit this head on with her sense of humor leading the charge.  Now our normally strong and rugged Dr. Goldstein seems to really be affected by the courage shown by this beautiful young lady, and as this tale progresses these two unlikely candidates for relationship seem to find themselves falling in love.  From here on out it just becomes a matter of time, and how much can be spent with each other.

Well people this is one of the laziest projects that I have seen in years.  In one simple word this movie is just plain boring, and the movie itself is nothing but a buzz kill.  This film also has one of the more ironic titles because this was anything but a little piece of heaven, as a matter of fact it was located little more south.  The movie is much too morbid to ever be considered funny, and it completely dwells on uninteresting despair never achieving any kind of humor.

Here’s a question, “What is going on with Kate Hudson’s career?”  I would classify it as a downward spiral after “Fool’s Gold”, “My Best Friend’s Girl”, “Bride Wars”, and “Something Borrowed”.  I mean does she only know how to be predictable and clichéd, because that is all she does every time she appears in a film.  The biggest and main reason she is so disappointing anymore, well that’s because she not only plays the exact same character every time out, she makes the exact same movie every time out.  That ‘Same’ movie, by the way, would be a bad romantic comedy.  On top of everything else Kate Hudson’s Marley isn’t even very likable in this movie, and she wastes every moment spent with the male lead.

Now this brings me to lead actor Gael Garcia Bernal, who in this movie has about as much charisma as a can of tuna.  Together he and Kate Hudson really don’t work very well as a couple.  I thought that there was less chemistry between them then there are between two 10th grade science and lab partners.  Actually Mr. Bernal wouldn’t have been my first choice to play opposite Kate Hudson, and now that I’ve seen the finished product, he wouldn’t have been my 60^th choice either.  I truly can’t believe how accomplished an actor this guy is, because he looks completely out of place next to his leading lady.  Boring and bland are the 2 best adjectives to describe his portrayal in this feature.

When you make a movie like “A Little Bit of Heaven” there are a couple of different ways that you can approach it.  You could go the straight dramatic route as in the classic “Love Story” with Ali McGraw and Ryan O’Neal.  The filmmakers also could’ve taken this into a funnier direction like they did in last year’s brilliant “50/50”.  Then you have “A Little Bit of Heaven” which never tells or becomes a compelling drama, and it’s barely funny enough to be labeled a television sitcom.  When a movie dealing with a topic as serious as this doesn’t completely ‘Hold the Line’ and give you a delicate or perfect balance…well it just downright falls apart.  It ends up being a little bit of a drama, a little bit of a comedy, but unfortunately it never succeeds at being entirely either one.  I would never recommend this to anyone that is sick…and now that I think about it I would never recommend this to anyone that is healthy, because just watching this might make them sick.

At 1 hour and 46 minutes “A Little Bit of Heaven” was too long at the halfway point.  The movie is poorly written, and the dialogue is a mishmash of trivial nonsense that barely holds your attention.  The direction is also less than stellar to say the least, and when you combine the two the end result is both choppy and inconsistent.  Throughout the film they initiate secondary stories and plot lines that they never even try to bring to any kind of a conclusion.  Actually outside of Peter Dinklage I can’t think of anything redeeming about this whole project.  It’s not that I’m a guy and I don’t like romcom’s either.  “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” is one of my favorite romantic comedies, and I gave very favorable reviews to both “Wanderlust” & “This Means War”.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is pretty much ‘Avoid This Movie Like the Plague’ with an extremely weak ½ of 1 star out of 4.  And that’s for the would-be romantic comedy “A Little Bit of Heaven”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Hunger Games”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

One of the more anticipated cinematic adaptations of a novel finally hits the big screen, and it’s not named “Harry Potter” or “Twilight”.  Hello there everyone and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Hunger Games”.  This adventure and thriller opened in worldwide release on Friday March 23^rd, 2012, and it stars one of my favorite young actors Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, and Elizabeth Banks.  This first installment of the “Hunger Games” franchise come to us from director Gary Ross, the director of 2 of the better films in the last decade or so having helmed both “Seabiscuit” and “Pleasantville”.  Mr. Ross now lends his talents to try and bring to life a beloved book series with millions of fans just waiting to tell him everything that he got wrong while doing it.

The story tells of a girl named Katniss that lives in the ruins of what used to be the United States of America.  She is sent to what can only be described as a reality show to compete in its ‘Hunger Games’.  This is a tool used by the government to keep children in check, as well as a nationally viewed phenomenon in the style of ‘American Idol’.  There are 12 districts of this new world and each must send a warrior or ‘Tribute’ to compete against each other until only one remains alive.  Katniss must utilize each and every talent that she has mastered over the years if she is to survive this ordeal, and while in the arena the only decisions are pretty much live or die.

Well people if anyone would’ve ever told me that they could’ve successfully crossbred the TV show “American Idol” & the movie “The Running Man” I would’ve thought them nuts, but “The Hunger Games” actually pulls it off quite nicely.  Gary Ross puts together what could be a straightforward tale in the hands of some, but with him at the helm a layered story emerges more than anything else.  “Hunger Games” is boisterous and colorful only when it needs to be, and contrasts brutality and violence in the basic landscape of the forest.  Ross combines many different kinds of settings and futuristic feels; however the film never once comes off as choppy.  What was obviously a much more in-depth story in the written word is consolidated and successfully translated to the big screen.  I’ll put it to you this way, I would choose to watch this every day of the week and twice on Sunday before I would ever choose to watch any of the “Twilight” movies once.

Now the filmmakers pretty much did themselves a really huge favor by casting the film so well in the first place.  I can state with absolute certainty that this whole film would’ve suffered if Jennifer Lawrence wasn’t in it.  She once again holds a film together with the same bravado she carried with her in “Winter’s Bone”, and for years I’ve said what a talent I think she is going all the way back to “The Bill Engvall Show”.  Josh Hutcherson also holds his own in his scenes with our heroine, but make no mistake about it folks this is the ‘Katniss Show’.  The film also sports a slew of quality and colorful supporting actors including Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, and an unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks.  She honestly looks like a cross between “Mommy Dearest” & Tammy Faye Baker.  Stanley Tucci’s smile also steals the show more than a few times, and I must wholeheartedly credit the makeup and wardrobe department with a bang up job throughout.

Now I really don’t have very much to complain about with “The Hunger Games”.  My biggest gripe was that I really didn’t have very much sympathy for the ‘Tributes’ outside of the main characters.  One secondary character named “Rue” attempts to bridge the gap in the department of empathy and compassion, but with this many people in one film there is only so much story that can be told.  Rue only has a few scenes and a few lines of spoken dialogue, so I didn’t find myself that attached to her when she met her demise.  I thought that the dialogue of the feature was good but the story was pretty basic.  It more than drew inspiration from “The Lord of the Flies”, “The Running Man”, and especially “The Truman Show”.  The creators of the TV show not only broadcast the events, they actually dictate what will occur. Near the end I thought that the teenage melodrama may have encouraged the length of the film a little bit and with only one scene of would be brutality…well I thought an entire opportunity in the film was wasted and/or missed.

At 2 hours and 25 minutes “The Hunger Games” never really seems that lengthy and clips along quickly from start to finish.  The film really comes together to form a tight and very suspenseful thriller.  Throughout the tale it raises moral questions and decisions, and I found myself caught up in the drama more than a few times.  The pace of the film is very brisk, and it absolutely needs to be because there is well over an hour of storyline before they let the games begin.  Now don’t get me wrong it still stays engaging and enjoyable just about the entire running time.  “Hunger Games” also successfully sets up the continuation of what will obviously become at least a trilogy.  Even though I thought in just a few spots this film kind of lagged, there is a healthy chunk of story yet to be told, and I can’t wait to see where they go with this.  Though not perfection Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a very close 3 ½ stars out of 4, and that’s for the new worldwide franchise “The Hunger Games”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Seeking Justice”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A troubled family risks even more trouble when a father attempts to take the law into his own hands.  Hello there to everyone watching and thanks once again for tuning into my favorite website ReelScreenReviews.com, I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Seeking Justice”.  This revenge thriller opened in limited release in March, 2012, and it stars the onscreen talents of Nicolas Cage, January Jones, Guy Pearce, and Xander Berkeley.  “Seeking Justice” comes to us from director Roger Donaldson, the director of “13 Days” and “The Recruit”, going all the way back to a 1980’s classic like “Cocktail”.  This time around Mr. Donaldson pairs himself with a former Academy Award winner in hopes of rejuvenating both of their careers.

This tale tells of a family that is almost torn apart when the mother and anchor of the household is brutally attacked while leaving her place of work one evening.    The physical pain is one aspect that they must endure, but the emotional scars leave an even deeper wound.  Now because of the circumstances that seem to have befallen them, the father portrayed by Nicolas Cage, will enlist the assistance of a group of vigilante soldiers that rarely let the law get in their way.  What starts out as a simple plan of revenge soon spins drastically out of control, and our suburban dad will now find himself up to his neck in all sorts of trouble.  Before this tale comes to a close our protagonist will soon learn that there is a fine line between a quest for justice, and the violence that comes with revenge.

Well people I’m going to start with Roger Donaldson who as the veteran director of credible features namely “No Way Out”, “13 Days”, and “The Bounty”, should’ve made a better film.  This is a strong and capable director that knows how to make a quality thriller, but this entire feature feels like a made for cable movie.  The editing in “Seeking Justice” is so lackluster that you can actually see it in many spots when watching the movie. There are characters that are standing next to someone, and after a few cuts, they are miraculously 4 feet away.  Or set designs that look like they were created by a bunch of 8^th graders in shop class, anyway you cut it the movie suffers just from a lack of budget.  When I was watching this film I was thinking that there’s no way they could have ever given this a huge marketing campaign, because if they did it would probably end up costing four times the movies production budget.  The only real safety net for “Seeking Justice” is that they enlisted the use of quality actors.  January Jones, Jennifer Carpenter, Harold Perrineau, and especially Guy Pearce bring believability to a film that without them would have wound up a ‘Lifetime’ original movie at best.

Nic Cage proves to be disappointing once again. I won’t stand here and insult the guy because we all know that he can be a great actor, but he has fallen so consistently and drastically over the last 12 to 15 years that nobody can even remember when that was.  By picking one less-than-stellar script after the next it’s almost as if he himself doesn’t even care about making a quality feature in the first place.  I could’ve easily seen this movie starring the likes of Casper Van Dien, Don ‘The Dragon’ Wilson, or Marc Dacascos, but now unfortunately Academy Award winner Nicolas Cage sees himself falling into the same breath as those performers.  “Seeking Justice” is pretty much substandard most of the way through and so was Cage’s performance.

Some other issues with the film.  Well for one I thought that they tried to cram so many twists and turns into the story, that eventually it just started to turn the feature befuddled and messy.  If you were to sit back and examine the premise and story it actually starts out very well, but then debilitates into non-believability and being far-fetched.  Then at some points when I was watching this I felt it to be so shoddy in production quality that it actually mimicked TV shows like “The A-Team” and “Simon & Simon” from 25 years ago.

Now this isn’t complete dread and nonsense, and there were at least a few things that were redeeming about “Seeking Justice”.  There are some twists and turns in the plot which means that they were trying, but to anyone paying attention…well let’s just say that there is no “Sixth Sense” grand reveal.  It does have more than a few quality action segments, and Roger Donaldson does still know how to direct a good thrilling sequence.  The pacing on those scenes was quick and fun, and at least they gave us a finale filled with suspense.  The best ingredient however of this feature is actor Guy Pearce.  I have heard others compare his role in this movie to an imitation of Charles Bronson, but I wouldn’t even categorize it to be that specific.  He reminded me of the tough guy from the 1970s and whether it was Charles Bronson, Steve McQueen, or James Coburn, he borrowed a little from a lot of legends, and created a character truly entertaining.  He is the best aspect of this film.

At 1 hour and 44 minutes “Seeking Justice” isn’t a question of length, but when you compare it to Donaldson’s ‘The Bank Job’ from a few years back this comes up well short.  The pace of the film is kept up, but that can’t make up for how poorly the film was put together.  It also can’t cover holes in the script, or the extreme that it takes to maintain the suspension of disbelief.  This isn’t the absolute bottom of the barrel and it does its best to stay entertaining, but mixing this low-budget story where the last third of the project falls apart wasn’t the best combination.  If you are stuck at home and you can ‘On Demand’ this for a few bucks then okay, if you can ‘Red Box’ it for a dollar then okay, other than that I would say hold off on full ticket price at the multiplex.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is once again the same old tune for a Nicolas Cage movie, a very disappointing 1 ½ stars out of 4.  And that’s for the action thriller “Seeking Justice”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Cabin in the Woods”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A group of individuals inadvertently start the ball rolling on what could be one of the most horrific creatures we ever seen.  Hello the to everyone and thank you once again for tuning into ReelScreenReviews.com I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci and our next movie review is “Cabin in the Woods”.  This horror/thriller opened in limited release finally after being completed for over year and will expand to a wide release on Friday April 13^th, 2012, and it stars a very credible cast including Richard Jenkins, Bradley Whitford, Chris Hemsworth, and Jesse Williams.  “Cabin in the Woods” comes to us from director Drew Goddard, the longtime writer of “Lost”, “Alias”, and the feature “Cloverfield”.  He now sits in the director’s chair for the first time, and does he deliver scares and screams into multiplexes across the country?

This story tells of a group of inexperienced professionals that go to get away from it all in a desolate cabin in the woods.  Is that where they got the title?  Anyway they soon put into motion a force so terrifying and horrific that they will soon be running just to stay alive.  Before too long they come to realize that time is running out and they are smack dab right in the middle of the thick of it.  Also considering that this film was written from Joss Whedon, well that usually promises an above average story and plotline.

Well people “The Cabin in the Woods” is not only one of the best horror movies that I have ever seen, this is actually one of the year’s best films.  You must immediately compliment Goddard & Whedon on their amazingly creative and entertaining script, that put simply takes this genre and turns it completely on its head.  Both Whedon and Goddard are storytellers first, and they never shortchange on development of characters or the emotionality of them.  I can’t remember having this much fun of the movie since the original “Oceans 11”, and this is the perfect example of 2 creative individuals doing exactly what they are best at.  I read in an online interview that these two guys churned out this script in a matter of 3 or 4 days, and as much is that must irritate most writers, the speed and success of the finished product must be as impressive to them as it is to me.

“The Cabin in the Woods” is the absolute best in-your-face reminder of why horror & scary movies are part of American culture, and why they need to be.  Just like “The Artist” took mainstream Hollywood by storm with its originality, this film does the same within the genre of suspense and thriller.  The last movie to really bring this much freshness to a slasher film was the Kevin Williamson/Wes Craven now classic “Scream”.  Every once in a while a movie comes along and defines a genre of film and this is definitely it.  This is much better than good, and not only did the filmmakers know that they wanted to do something different, they succeeded at doing it.  This feature makes other reinventions such as “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” & “The Hills Have Eyes” seem like assembly-line standardness, and the solid structure of this project is massively entertaining, as well as tight & even funny.

From a technical aspect Goddard’s brilliant direction keeps this film as a literal edge-of-your-seat thriller.  You also have well above average talent in front of the camera with Academy Award nominated actor Richard Jenkins, as well as “Thor’s” Chris Helmsworth, and the always credible Bradley Whitford to name a few.  They raised the bar on the drama, and tip your hat to veteran director of photography Peter Deming and film editor Lisa Lassek as well.  Together they combine their talents and piece together a nice looking film, all the while making the most of almost every single frame.  However once again the writing is just creative and fun, and shines above everything else in this project.  So many movie rules are obliterated that you actually will have no idea what is going to happen next.  Character stereotypes are also thrown out as well, and the audience sits there almost as if they are figuratively blindfolded while watching “Cabin in the Woods”.

At 1 hour and 35 minutes “The Cabin in the Woods” could’ve easily been 15 – 20 minutes longer and I wouldn’t have complained a bit.  The best aspect of the film is that it achieves intelligence very early, and maintains that intelligence throughout.  The entire time it never shortchanges on being a frightening feature, nor does it relent with the scares at any time.  Walking in you’ll be thinking that this is a movie that I’ve seen 100 times before, and walking out you will be thinking that’s one memorable movie out of 100 times at the multiplex.  This movie breathes new life into an almost stale and tired genre, and even reboots of Freddy, Jason, & Michael Myers couldn’t come close to what this film attains.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review, if you haven’t guessed, is a perfect 4 stars out of 4. And that exceptional rating is for the exceptional thriller “The Cabin in the Woods”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“Silent House”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

A young woman descends into a state of madness as she is trapped at the lakeside house of her family.  Hello there to everyone in cyberspace I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci as always for ReelScreenReviews.com, and our next movie review is “Silent House”.  This horror and thriller opened on March 9^th, 2011, and it stars young actors Elizabeth Olsen, Adam Trese, Eric Sheffer Stevens, and Haley Murphy.  “Silent House” comes to us from the directing team of Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, the directors behind the thriller “Open Water” from 2003.  This time around they attempt to plunge the audience down a road into madness, and do it in the first person.

This tale tells of a girl named Sarah and her family that are trying to clean up their summer cottage after it has been vandalized.  Knowing that squatters are almost always around they soon suspect that they are not alone, and soon suspicions become realities.  Now it seems the deeper we get into the story, the darker the secrets that are revealed.  One of the coolest aspects of “Silent House” was that it was shot in the first person of Sarah’s character, and because of that the audience gets to witness first-hand the unfolding of this girl’s horror and mystery.

Well people I must admit that I was intrigued by the whole real-time issue, and I was even more engaged in the element of one continuous take.  You really need bold talent even take on a project like this, and the whole film is a compliment to the craft and technique of almost all involved.  The filmmakers as well as the actors are really put to the test delivering what can be described as a filmed theatrical stage play.  One continuous take allows the audience to step in and become part of the story as it unravels, and the in-your-face content of the film barely gives you time to even take a breath.  Also the cameras would likewise almost always have to be in constant motion, and just keeping them hidden would be chore in itself.  The movements of the cameramen would have to be just as well thought out and blocked as much as the talent in front of it.  Once again….very difficult.

Now this film is not completely without music or musical effects, but they are very minimal compared to most Hollywood features.  This film relies on the brilliant use of accenting every day noises that come with an old cottage.  Steps that creek and doors that squeak added a dimension to the film, and jumps and scares were also used to maximum effect.  The actual use of very faint or no music at all was nerve-racking, and the fact that this is not a bloodfest absolutely adds to the entire experience.  I have often said that the best horror films are the ones that can actually happen.  “Misery”, “Psycho”, and “The Crazies” are believable when you consider the premise of each one, and being terrorized in an isolated section of the woods isn’t too far from the realm of conceivability.  You could actually feel the tension in the theater rise up exactly when the filmmakers wanted it to happen, which tells me that they really had a sense of this material before they even set up the cameras.

“Silent House” is almost a Hitchcockian tale from the beginning with being trapped in this specific and secluded place.  There’s nowhere to go and this killer is right there with you.  The movie gets a boost with the credible and very believable performance from Elizabeth Olsen. Her portrayal is strong and defines in every way what is good about acting.  She is very expressive without the convenience of dialogue, and she successfully takes you on this dissension into hell right along with her.

Now there is only 1 real issue that I have with “Silent House”, and that would be the last 5 minutes.  Just like another recent horror film “The Last Exorcism”, this film simply cops out at the and instead of delivering a truly solid finish.  After dishing out 80 minutes of actual suspense and thrills, it goes for this ending that is overused and convenient to say the least.  It chooses to go with an ending that has been used in at least a half a dozen movies since the year 2000, and when it came time for the movie to go pop…it just went fizzle right at the and.

At 88 minutes “Silent House” was tight and suspenseful throughout, until it reached the last 5 minutes.  It is gripping with its point of view storytelling and its lack of a boisterous musical score.  The features 1 main performance is definitely a strong one, and even though it is filled with silence, I thought it flew by as a very fast hour and a half.  I found this film to be tense and frightening, and it seemed to make a lot of scares out of very few resources.  A truly great and intelligent finale would have solidified this as a truly great and memorable horror flick, unfortunately a lackluster finish brings this down at least 1 whole notch.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is still a highly recommended 3 stars out of 4, for Elizabeth Olsen in the solid horror thriller “Silent House”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.

“John Carter”

A Movie Review

By

Nick Iacobucci

Disney is hoping for another lucrative franchise with a hot young actor and an out-of-this-world adventure.  Hello to everyone in cyberspace I am movie critic Nick Iacobucci as always for the website ReelScreenReviews.com and our next movie review is “John Carter”.  This science fiction and actioneer opened on March 9^th, 2012, and it stars Taylor Kitsch, Willem Dafoe, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, and Dominic West.  “John Carter” comes to us from director Andrew Stanton, a master at directing animation having helmed the Disney/Pixar hits “WALL-E”, “Finding Nemo”, and “A Bug’s Life”.  Mr. Stanton now tries to successfully make the jump to live action and following in the footsteps of fellow Pixar graduate Brad Bird, who effectively went from directing “The Incredibles” to helming Christmas’ high octane “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”.

This story centers on an adaptation of the classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs and sees our adventure taking place on the red planet of Mars.  Our story follows the character of John Carter, a former military captain that when attempting to take shelter in a cavern, is mysteriously transported to the land of Barsoom.  Shortly after arriving in the unfriendly atmosphere John gets needlessly caught up in the conflict between Tars Tarkas and Princess Thoris, and soon John will do all he can to save this world from complete destruction.  With everything going on all around him can this broken man with a broken soul find redemption, and at the same time rediscover his own humanity in order to save a race of strangers?

Well people going in my big question was whether or not Taylor Kitsch could carry an entire film by himself, and the answer is ‘Yes’.  I have never watched the TV show “Friday Night Lights”, but I did think that he was one of the best parts of the “Wolverine” movie from a few years back.  He does step up to the plate of leading man, and exudes the confidence of a veteran action star.  He also brings a fun and likable protagonist to the big screen, and really lays the foundation for what in the future could be Oscar caliber leading man status.  Just think George Clooney from the movie “From Dusk Till Dawn”.

Now I must also credit director Andrew Stanton for combining many different looks and textures into one entertaining film.  It was a good-looking movie when it was a Western, the movie also looked good when depicting New York City of the 1880s, and finally the film also worked when it was a science-fiction fantasy.  The movie is shot well, and the filmmaker also went out of his way to contrast the setting of the film to match each time period.  Caverns, deserts, and out-worldly scenic backdrops keep the feature visually interesting, and “John Carter” even looked futuristic to me.  It was no surprise to learn that the department of art direction on this film consisted of a dozen individuals, because with its wide shots the film is not only beautiful, in many spots it is breathtaking as well.

This film has great action, a decent villain, and a credible story.  Just like Superman, ‘John Carter’ derives his super abilities just from being on this new planet; however unlike Sam Worthington from “Avatar” initially John Carter does not want to be part of this world.  He is an interesting character portrayed by a credible actor, and I hope that they get to do more with this hero that travels across the Milky Way.  But behind all of the special effects and CGI is at least a credible story and mystery.  Some of that mystery lies in these three God-like creatures that all serve a higher power, and they have an agenda all their own with little concern for anyone in their way.

I did thoroughly enjoy “John Carter”; however there were a few drawbacks at least worth mentioning.  First off the movie was about 15 to 20 minutes too long.  With maybe one too many subplots, especially the gladiator games and competitions, it really did push the running time a little over the mark.  And even though this film was original in many spots, it did out and out copy other famous movies from decades past.  Their flying speeders were a carbon copy of “Return of the Jedi”, and his rousing wartime speech while covered in blueblood…Really?  No one over at Disney ever saw “Braveheart”?  Lastly, when these absolutely breathtaking action sequences end and dialogue starts to take over…well so does the boredom sometimes.

At around 2 hours and 15 minutes “John Carter”, like I said before, could’ve been about 15 or 20 minutes shorter.  Now give it up to the beauty of Blu-Ray DVD where I can skip through those chapters in a home viewing.  I would classify this as an imaginative story and film, and it reminded me of watching an old adventure tale like “Gunga Din”, only on another planet of course.  If you want to go with the story being given then I think that you can really have a good time with John Carter, but if you go in wanting to pick apart…well you’ll most likely be able to do so rather easily. Though standard in spots I thought Taylor Kitsch did a fine job in the lead, and I would recommend this to anyone that just wants to have fun watching a movie.  Nick’s Reel Screen Review is a favorable 3 stars out of 4, and that’s for the Taylor Kitsch science fiction actioneer “John Carter”.

And remember people, I’m not always right, but only when it comes to the movies.  And thank you for your attention.