The Ridiculous Six Is the Worst Thing to Happen to Netflix Since Qwikster.

From the same streaming service that brought audiences acclaimed shows like House of Cards and Orange is the New Black comes The Ridiculous Six. This "comedic" western is definitive proof that Netflix is just as capable at producing terrible products as other Hollywood studios.

What could possibly be said about Adam Sandler's recent live-action efforts that hasn't already been said? The product placement is over-the-top, the cameos are unbelievably forced, the toilet humor is juvenile, and there seems to be practically no effort put into their screenplays. All of these (except the product placement) can be applied to The Ridiculous Six, but somehow it's even worse than all of Sander's "efforts" combined. It may even be worse than Jack and Jill and Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.

This "movie" stars Adam Sandler as a hero named White Knife, a white man who was raised by Native Americans after his mother was killed. After his father is kidnapped, White Knife must go on a bank-robbing quest with his five half-bothers to rescue him.

What better way to start my numerous gripes with this film than with Sandler's character? White Knife is a Gary-Stu type character with super powers and a tragic backstory. He has absolutely no flaws and is thus an incredibly boring protagonist. It doesn't help that Sandler's performance seems like it was fueled by NyQuil. Say what you want about his annoying characters (such as his character in That's My Boy), but at least you had the sense that he was trying. Here, he plays White Knife as dull as possible, leaving for absolutely no laughs.

The rest of the cast (for the most part) at least try to give lively performances, but they are all let down by a "screenplay" that isn't funny for even a fraction of a second. Almost all of the characters are bland, goofy stereotypes that are so detached from reality, that they aren't the least bit relatable. Rob Schneider plays a Mexican stereotype who's only character trait is being a stereotype with an incontinent donkey. Taylor Lautner plays a dimwitted hillbilly whose only character trait is being stupid. Steve Zahn plays a character whose only trait is having a crazy eye. The list just goes on and on.

What's even more egregious is the fact that the many Native American actors (and even some white actors with dark makeup on) in this film are stuck playing bland stereotypes whose only character traits are speaking broken English. Sure, the initial reports of dozens of Native American actors walking off the set were a bit exaggerated (only about four actors actually walked out). However, the ones who did had every right to; in a time when Hollywood is trying to build more diverse stars, this film does absolutely no favors to these actors who could be showing off their talents in something better.

Dumb comedy can work if it's done right. Dumb and Dumber worked because the characters had their own distinct personalities and goals. They were relatable, connecting to our inner dumb sides with lively personalities and well-timed jokes. The Ridiculous Six, however, is so lazy in it's execution, that its just boring to sit through.

As a matter of fact, the biggest problem I had with this film is that it's just boring. When the jokes aren't horrendously juvenile grossout gags like donkey diarrhea or someone trying to gouge their own eye out, they just fall flat. In one scene, White Knife throws a knife into a water jug. Nick Nolte's character knocks the knife out, and White Knife throws the knife into the same hole to plug it up. So what's the joke? Is it that White Knife is skilled with a knife? Because that isn't a joke.

Some jokes are even repeated more than once in an attempt to fill up a 2-hour runtime. One throwaway gag involves a Native American toddler holding a Tomahawk. About ten minutes later, what seems to be the same clip is shown again. If they already did this visual gag once, why do it again? Were they that desperate to eat time?

Other jokes are blatantly explained, which is a common theme I've noticed with Sandler's recent movies. In one badly-timed scene, a villainous character's head is knocked off while his body is still firing his gun. The character shoots his gun at his still smiling disembodied head, to which Terry Crews' character says: "He's giving himself six bullets to the head!" Taylor Lautner's character then says: "And he's still smiling!" The Joker said it best: if you have to explain the joke, there is no joke.

Humor is subjective, but this kind of humor so obviously lacks effort, that it's hard to believe that anybody who isn't drunk would find it funny. You could tell that Adam Sandler cranked out this screenplay to fill up his four-movie deal with Netflix.

The rest of the script is just as lazy as the jokes are. Many scenes like one involving a baseball game just go on and on while providing almost nothing to the plot. Other scenes involve characters just spilling out exposition from their mouths in an attempt to develop their bland characters. The beginning of the movie features Adam Sandler and Nick Nolte's characters explaining their relationship and their past. Since their characters are so bland, there's no reason to even care. Adam Sandler has written some abysmal screenplays in the past, but this one really outdoes itself.

After giving audiences such excellent original films as A Very Murray Christmas and Beasts of no Nation, The Ridiculous Six is an absolute embarrassment to Netflix. Not only that, but it may even be the worst Happy Madison movie ever made. Jack and Jill at least had a surreal, committed performance from Al Pacino. It was completely undermined by the awful script, but it was something interesting to look at. Bucky Larson's humor was as forced and unfunny as it gets, but at least Nick Swardson gave some effort as the lead actor.

The only positive thing about Ridiculous Six is the high production value. The film has a crisp look to it, with some great settings and art design. However, the same can be said for most Hollywood productions with big budgets. Micro-budget movies like Birdemic and Manos: the Hands of Fate may be technically worse than The Ridiculous Six, but at least I could laugh at those in retrospective. The Ridiculous Six is a boring, laugh-free tragedy that may be not only the worst Happy Madison movie I've ever seen, but the worst movie I've ever seen...period.

Hopefully The Hateful Eight will wash the bad taste of this out of my mouth with a quality ensemble western.

Ant-Man Is a Mess That Satisfies by the End. (SPOILER REVIEW)

Score: 3/5

*Contains Spoilers*

I'm sure I'm not the first to admit that I had mixed expectations for Ant-Man. In the months leading up to its release, I have read several news articles and interviews about Ant-Man's production issues. Usually when a movie has backstage problems, its quality suffers greatly. Examples include, but are not limited to Brave, Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World.

As such, I was weary that Ant-Man could end up being a rare misfire for Marvel. Unfortunately, while I may be in the minority with my opinion, this somewhat became the case with Ant-Man. The key word being: "somewhat."



Right off the bat, Ant-Man started off pretty well. The main character Scott Lang is an instantly likable protagonist. Whether he's getting into a prison fight or working as Baskin Robbins, Paul Rudd gives an earnest charm to Scott that fits the character to a tee. Though the character himself was a cliched down-on-his-luck father with an estranged ex-wife and child, Rudd does his best to elevate the character. Something about the way he delivered his lines felt like he really cared about what he was filming, and it was a pleasant viewing experience. Even with all of the film's flaws, I am still looking forward to seeing Rudd play the miniscule warrior in future MCU installments.

On the other hand, despite how strong the supporting cast is, their characters are pretty weak. Hank Pym (played by the typically masterful Michael Douglas) comes across as yet another retired hero-turned-mentor who's only purpose in the film is to train Scott on how to use the Ant-Man suit. Sure, he has the occasional funny line, and Michael Douglas gives him charm, but he seems to take a backseat in this movie.

The problem with Hank Pym is that by the end of the movie, Scott doesn't really learn anything from him. During the film, Scott is caught in the middle of a tedious father-daughter conflict between Hank and his daughter Hope (played by the underrated Evangeline Lilly). Hope wants to wear the shrink suit instead of Scott, but Hank won't let her. The two go back and forth about how Hope's mother died several times until Hank finally tells Hope that she died using the suit and they reconcile. Since Scott has a daughter himself, you'd think that he'd learn something from this conflict, but no. He loves his daughter just as much at the beginning of the film as he does by the end. So essentially, this daddy-issues subplot was entirely pointless.

As for the character of Hope, she comes across as the typical gung-ho daughter who wants to fight when her overprotective father won't let her. All she really does is mope about how she wants to take up the shrink suit. By the time she does get a shrink suit of her own (during the mid-credits scene), I didn't care what happened to her. She just felt like another obligatory female side character that the protagonist ends up falling in love with.



The weakest character, by far, is the villain. Darren Cross/Yellowjacket has to be the worst villain in the MCU next to Malekith. He's just another smarmy businessman in a suit like in all three Iron Man movies and Captain America 2. What makes it even worse is that the film doesn't really try to make him memorable. His motivations for being evil are never really clear (whether it's a hunger for power or a chemical imbalance), and he is just forgettable as a whole. At least in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Alexander Pierce was memorable in the context of the film's political plot.


The film even has to resort to showing him performing cruel animal testing on adorable lambs to force the audience to hate him. When a script has to stoop to something that obvious and desperate to get you to hate the villain, you get the feeling like even the filmmakers think the character is weak. Imagine if all Red Skull did was punch puppies: you'd hate him on instinct, but it would feel as lazy as a fake-out jumpscare in a horror film.

Moreover, the fact that the movie changed writers/directors was pretty clear to see. Some scenes suffer from jarring tonal shifts. For example, what seems like a training montage is interrupted by tragic exposition of Hope's mother dying from shrinking into oblivion. This, in turn, is concluded by a witty remark from Scott that feels out of place and awkwardly timed. If this was meant to be funny, it wasn't.

Based on several interviews and stories that I’ve read, the most likely reason why Edgar Wright left Ant-Man was because the heads at Marvel Studios wanted him to tie his film more into Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. The urge to tie this movie into the universe becomes quite apparent in one scene where Scott just happens to drop in on the newly-built Avengers headquarters to steal an unknown device. The scene, which features a fight with Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie) is almost completely pointless and only serves as a forced universe tie-in. If this scene is the reason why Edgar Wright left, I can certainly sympathize with him.

Despite all of these flaws I’ve had with the film, there were still plenty of moments that delivered the goods. The humor, for the most part, is just as witty as you'd expect from a Marvel movie. In particular, Michael Peña’s character Luis was the comedic highlight of the movie.


Luis is Scott's good friend and former cell mate. Despite the fact that he went to jail, his mother died, and his father was deported, he is still strangely optimistic. He also has a knack for telling stories in a humorously rambling manner. Peña’s genius performance combined with the character’s awkward nature make Luis one of the best comic relief characters I’ve ever seen. As many people have already said, I'd love to see a one-shot of his character narrating Ant-Man's events in a silly, rambling manner.

The potentially silly concept of Scott being able to control the minds of ants was executed flawlessly as well. Seeing him train and learn to become one with the ants was so surreal, and yet incredibly fun to see. Seeing Scott fly around on a carpenter ant and build fire ant bridges proved that big imagination can come in small packages.

The scene where he breaks into Cross' building to steal the Yellowjacket suit is especially exhilarating, and I was truthfully fully engaged. To put it bluntly: seeing Ant-Man surf on a bed of fire ants is destined to be a classic Marvel moment for me. On paper, something like that in an action film seems destined for mockery, but director Peyton Reed really makes it work.

As a side note: RIP Antony.

It is no surprise that the best scene in the movie was straight from the mind of Edgar Wright, and Peyton Reed amiably translates it onto the screen. The final fight between Ant-Man and Yellowjacket takes place in Scott's daughter's bedroom. Toys are thrown, a piggy bank is blown up, and Thomas the Tank Engine blows a hole in the wall. Again, what sounds stupid really works well on film. The sheer creativity of this fight scene is something that has to be seen to believe, and I dare say it's one of the best fight scenes I've seen in recent years.

Both of the previously mentioned scenes happened at the end of the movie, so I walked out feeling satisfied with what I've seen. The experience itself was worth it. Sure, the movie is far from perfect, but I felt like I had spent my money well. It was only in retrospect that I really reflected on the movie's flaws.

In a way, the movie does exactly what it sets out to do; giving audiences something ambitious while still hyping them up for future MCU movies. Ant-Man is a mess, yes, but I do recommend checking it out for what it is and what it offers for longtime Marvel fans.

Unbroken: Flawed but Honorable

Score: 3.5/5

As memorable as many true stories are, Hollywood often makes the pitfall of turning them into less-than-stellar movies. Films like The Soloist and Diana try to pay tribute to a real person but don't give enough insight into their subjects to make a film worth watching. Particularly, they rush to tell their subjects' stories and end up leaving out vital elements to make the film shorter. In some ways, Unbroken makes these pitfalls, but thanks to the visceral direction of Angelina Jolie, it is certainly above average.

Unbroken tells the amazing true story of Louie Zamperini, an Olympic athlete who ends up becoming a war hero. Zamperini's story, as it was was stated by his son, Luke, is far too grand and eventful to be told in two and a half hours. After seeing this film, I would have to agree with him. At the same time though, I thought the film on its own was still a worthy tribute.

After stating that she wishes to move on from acting to directing, Angelina absolutely shows promise with Unbroken. Angelina Jolie's direction is skillful and committed, and with the help of cinematographer Roger Deakins, Unbroken is a visual triumph.


With the help of excellent lighting and effects, Unbroken has the feeling of a storybook, giving the audience a fitting visual representation of the trials that Zamperini went through. For instance, as he and his men are stuck at sea early in the film, the water is a beautiful bright blue while they are shown with cracked, dry faces. It perfectly conveys the torture of being dehydrated under the hot sun surrounded by water unsuitable for drinking.

Later on in the movie, Zamperini is captured and eventually brought to a labor camp led by an evil war criminal known as "the Bird" (played excellently by Japanese guitarist Miyavi). When he first makes his entrance, he is surrounded by dry, arid land with ominous dusty winds surrounding him. The character's cruel, sadistic nature is perfectly parallel with the harsh, sadistic conditions of the labor camp. Jolie and Deakins deserve all the praise they can get and much more.

The cast of Unbroken is worthy of just as much lauding. Specifically, the performances of Jack O'Connell and Miyavi are worth pointing out. O'Connell's performance gives Zamperini a warmly likable persona early on in the film, and it is quite easy to root for him to prevail. As the film goes on, the character's physical strength deteriorates but his ambition to survive still goes strong. O'Connell especially portrays this well in the scene where he is forced to hold a wooden beam above his head. Naturally, his teeth are clenched and his legs are wobbly, but O'Connell keeps a focused expression that honors the heroic perseverance of Zamperini himself.


Newcomer Miyavi's performance is a quintessential breakout role. He gives the Bird a sadistic personality bound to strike fear in the hearts of audiences. At the same time, the character is also given humanity. In a way, it is like his commitment to serving his country has turned him into a monster to the point where the only way he can find solace is by punishing any enemy of Japan as brutally as he can. When Zamperini defies the odds near the end of the film, the Bird is distraught and in disbelief at the notion that he failed his country by failing to properly punish the enemy.

While the direction, technical aspects and performances are worth praising, this movie is surprisingly lacking in the screenplay department.

The film's ambitions are high, as it shows in the screenplay. In the span of two and a half hours, Zamperini's humble beginnings as a child, his participation in the 1936 Olympics, his time as a WWII soldier, his time lost at sea, and his time as a POW are all covered. It certainly does its best at telling Zamperini's story in a relatively short period of time. However, those who have researched the true story will notice that important elements have been left out for time.

One of the biggest themes of Zamperini's story was forgiveness. Mainly, his religious upbringing helping him forgive those who captured him. This was a subject that was given a lofty amount of attention in the CBS Sports documentary: The Great Zamperini (seen above), so clearly it should have had more focus than a few minutes in the whole movie. Perhaps a miniseries would have been a more appropriate way to tell his story. Here is how it could have gone:

Part One: Zamperini's humble beginnings.
Part Two: Zamperini competes in the Olympics.
Part Three: Zamperini's time in the war.
Part Four: Zamperini's time lost at sea.
Part Five: Zamperini's time as a POW.
Part Six: Zamperini's last days as a POW and rescue.
Part Seven: Zamperini uses his religious upbringing to forgive his captors.

Now, don't get me wrong: amazing true stories can be told on film. For example, Lincoln gives an excellent amount of time and attention to Abraham Lincoln's ambition to get the Emancipation Proclamation signed. Focusing on one part of Lincoln's life also allows insight into the relationships with his family along the way. However, Unbroken's time limit forces it to rush through Zamperini's entire war story while still leaving out some of the most important aspects of it. It could have been the story of a man who defied the odds and accepted the forgiving nature of his religion. Instead, it is mainly the story of defying the odds and surviving the war. It's still a moving story, but I feel like it would have been stronger if it focused more on the religious elements.

Unbroken will undoubtedly win audiences over with its moving real-life story to back it up. It certainly means well, as it does its part in immortalizing a man who captured and beaten in the name of his country and lived to tell the tale. While its' screenplay struggles to tell the complete story it aims to, the overall production is worth a watch. If this is a sign of Angelina Jolie's future in directing, it is looking to be a bright one indeed.

Godzilla: Suspenseful and Mostly Excellent

Score: 4/5

***CONTAINS A SPOILER***

Before even going in to see Godzilla, I have heard plenty of complaints that the movie's titular kaiju is not in it enough. Even a few professional critics like Alonso Duralde of The Wrap have complained, Alfonso in particular saying: "if Americans are going to build big-budget movies around him, they could at least give this legend more screen time." Honestly, I can see where the critics are coming from, but I still enjoyed it.

The movie starts off very strong, with a tense scene involving the character Joe Brody (played by Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston) losing his wife in a kaiju-inflicted nuclear meltdown. This very effectively sets up his character and Cranston gives a superb performance.

15 years later, Joe's son Ford (played by Aaron Taylor Johnson of Kick-Ass and the upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron) works for the military and has settled down with a family to forget the fateful day his mother died. His past soon comes back to haunt him when he gets involved in his father's obsession for avenging his wife. Unfortunately, Johnson's performance isn't nearly up to par with Cranston's. In fact, it seemed downright wooden at times. This is especially a problem when...

***(SPOILER ALERT)***

Joe dies in the first 20 minutes, leaving the audience with a less interesting main character to root for. On the bright side, there isn't an overload of dialogue with his character, and Johnson's performance at least isn't cringe-worthy (like Shia LaBeouf in Transformers 3). Plus, the pleasant performances of Elizabeth Olsen, Sally Hawkins, and Ken Wantanabe make Johnson's performance less of a problem than it could have been.

However, in spite of this flaw, I still enjoyed watching Godzilla. I'm sure a lot of people will go in expecting a giddy showcase of special effects like Pacific Rim and Transformers. However, I could tell that director Gareth Edwards wanted to take a different approach. By showing bits and pieces of Godzilla and how destructive he can be, the filmmakers implement the Jaws strategy of building suspense to lead to an amazing final showdown (which I won't spoil, but I will say it's worth the wait for Godzilla).

To be fair, the teasing can be a bit frustrating at times, especially when the film cuts to another plot point just when a battle between Godzilla and the enemy monsters (a male and female species called MUDO). On the other hand, I can see why this decision was made. Considering that there is only one type of monster in the film, seeing Godzilla fight the same monster over and over again would seem stale and repetitive, especially since the off screen battles result in a stalemate.

In spite of these flaws, I can honestly say I still walked out of Godzilla in a good mood. Perhaps the main reason I enjoyed it was the pure scope and thrill of the directing, editing and sound editing/mixing.

Every time a monster destroys a building or structure, you can practically hear every wall crumble and every wire snap. I really got a sense of immersion with all of the destruction going on, and found myself cringing and laughing like in a good disaster movie.

Speaking of which, almost every scene of destruction is shown from the point of view of the onlookers. Whether its from the inside of a skyscraper, the front of a boat, or from a bridge, the decision to show the monsters from the humans' perspective was absolutely genius. It truly put the audience in the film's atmosphere and made the already brilliantly executed CGI effects even more effective.

Something else that should be pointed out is that even when Godzilla isn't on screen, the movie almost always throws an interesting situation to keep you on the edge of your seat. I actually found most of the scenes to be well-made enough to compensate for the weak lead performance. One scene in particular involves Ford and another soldier hiding on a railway bridge from the female MUDO. Watching the monster creep under the bridge while the two tried to stay hidden kept the entire audience on their toes in anticipation.

Those expecting another Pacific Rim may be disappointed with the grittier and more suspenseful tone that Godzilla takes on. However, if you like creature features and disaster movies, you should definitely give this movie a shot.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (PG-13): A Sloppy Letdown

Score: 1.5/5

*****(CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS)*****

            The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the greatest disappointment I have ever seen since Iron Man 2. Like Iron Man 2, it meshes all sorts of plot threads together with barely any connection in an attempt to set up a bigger film (in this case, the Sinister Six) and fails miserably.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 starts off with promise, as Peter Parker (played excellently by Anderew Garfield) takes on the Rhino (played by Paul Giamatti). It’s a thrilling chase that is an absolute pleasure to watch, and it all ends in a light-hearted meeting between Peter and Gwen (played also superbly by Emma Stone). This is all enjoyably good, but all of a sudden, the movie takes a Tyler-Perry-style u-turn into dismal melodrama.

Somehow, despite his vow to be with Gwen in spite of her father in the last film, he suddenly realizes he’s putting her in danger. Then all of a sudden, he states that he can’t be with her and Gwen breaks up with him…in the first ten minutes. It’s not like he put her in danger or anything; she was just minding her own business at the graduation ceremony and all of a sudden, he realizes he can’t be with her. What’s even worse is that they make up with each other ten minutes later…before Gwen announces out of the blue that she’s moving to England. The movie tries to set up a conflict between the two, but it just comes across as so rushed and so lazy that I didn’t even care about it.

Then we have the villain, Electro (played by Jamie Foxx). Instead of giving him an honest introduction and really fleshing out his character, he is introduced as awkward comedic fodder. All he is basically is a guy who was saved by Spider-Man and develops a creepy obsession for him…oh, and he also has no friends at work. After gaining his electric powers, he decides to take his anger of being lonely out on the world and suddenly decides he hates Spider-Man after a brief failed negotiation. That’s it; we get no backstory on the guy, no interesting character traits, just a lazy mess of character development. You’d think with Electro being plastered all over the trailers and marketing that they’d have a deep, interesting story for him. But no, his story is pretty much put on the backburner to tell the story of Harry Osbourne (played by Dane Dehaan). However, even his backstory is underdeveloped.

We are introduced to Harry with no background and are suddenly expected to care about him after Peter simply shows up at his office and has an emotional reunion with him. “Show, don’t tell” obviously doesn’t apply here; the movie tells us that Peter and Harry used to be friends but we are given no true insight on that. He’s such a shallow villain, that it feels like the writer dropped the script and lost a couple of pages in the wind.

So just to review, among the films conflicts are: Peter’s rocky relationship with Gwen, Electro’s backstory, and Harry’s relationship with Peter. That’s not all though, there’s also the conflict of Peter trying to find out why his father disappeared, the only issue that was truly carried over from the last film. Oh, and there’s a plot point involving Peter’s relationship with his Aunt May and how being a superhero puts a rift between them. So in total, that’s five story elements all crammed into one film. All it adds up to is a trainwreck of massive proportions. Even when the movie tries to tie all of these elements together, it just fails. This is especially a problem when all of these plot elements lend themselves to big, soap-opera-like scenes of dismal, moping melodrama. This movie mopes so much, it makes Man of Steel look like The Fantastic Four.  

   All of the impressive special effects and fine acting in the world couldn’t save this movie from its shoddy, sloppy script. Half of it is practically unwritten and the other half is just a rushed setup for the Sinister Six film. Look Sony, I know that you only own the rights to Spider-Man, and I know you want a big epic film to compete with The Avengers. On the contrary, trying to create your own Avengers franchise isn’t taking you over The Avengers, it’s just turning the Spider-Man franchise into total garbage. That’s what this movie is: garbage.

I didn’t want to hate this; I wanted the critics to be wrong. At the very least, I was hoping I could get some enjoyment out of it like Man of Steel. It may have been full of holes and shoddily assembled, but at least Man of Steel focused on one villain and one story. I seriously hope that the next Spider-Man film will blow this one out of the water, because my standards for this franchise have been set to an all-time low.

Final Grade: D+

Brick Mansions (PG-13): An Adequate Remake

*SPOILER ALERT*

          It’s pretty safe to assume that remakes get a bad reputation in Hollywood. As a result, most critics have decried “Brick Mansions” as an inferior remake to the original French film: “District B13.” Having seen both films, I thought I’d take the time to compare each film’s elements together to see which one is better (at least in my book).

I’m going to be honest; the opening of “Brick Mansions” does a much better job on giving exposition than the original. In the original, a simple paragraph explains that a section of Paris was blocked off and quarantined from the rest of the world. In the remake, several news reports are shown describing how the crime rate of the city (Detroit in this film) is out of control, giving a nice setup for the setting of the film. Something else I’ve noticed is that the police officer’s character (played by Cyril Raffaelli in the original and Paul Walker in the remake) is given more background in the remake, and it gives the audience more time to care about his character. He is also given more time to spend with the main character (played by David Belle in both versions). Belle even seemed to have better on-screen chemistry with Walker than with Raffaelli. This isn’t to say these elements weren’t good in the original, but I found them to be stronger in the remake.

               

On the other hand, I found the ending of the original to be far superior to the remake’s ending. In the remake, the mob boss is gunned down by his own crew after they realize he is violent and greedy.  It makes sense because he kills them off whenever he feels like it, and so they kill him when they get the chance. The crew then helps the main characters reach the bomb that was placed by the mayor and expose his plot to destroy the slums in an attempt to lower crime rates. It’s a nice, clean ending that wraps up the film nicely.

In the remake, the mob boss (played by RZA) is still violent and greedy, but his gang never betrays him, and he in fact helps the main characters at the end. At one point in the ending, he actually hits the switch to send the bomb off downtown before it is shot out by Walker’s character. Soon after, he tries to detonate it again but has a change of heart when he realizes that he doesn’t want to kill millions of people downtown. This makes no sense whatsoever; he hit the switch before but suddenly he won’t do it? What’s worse is that he actually gets away scot-free with killing his own crew members and attempting to set a bomb off downtown. He even runs for mayor after the original mayor is exposed. Would you elect someone that hit a button to kill millions of people?

Overall, both films have their strengths in the story department. The remake’s story is stronger in the first half while the original has a more satisfying conclusion. I’d say they are both evenly matched.

Regarding the setpieces, both films have thrilling, exciting fight and chase scenes with parkour and martial arts galore. The remake’s fight scenes are longer than the original’s, and I give a lot of credit for expanding upon the original rather than a simple shot-for-shot remake. Scenes like the break-in to the district and the handcuff/steering wheel scene are significantly improved upon the original. This is the kind of thing we should see more of in remakes. A lot of people have complained that the PG-13 rating waters down the action of the R-rated original. However, I’ve seen both films, and with the exception of a few bloody gunshot wounds, I didn’t feel like this version was that much tamer than the original.

To be fair though, the editing in the remake isn’t quite as smooth as in the original, and the original also had superior cinematography. There were also some fight scenes in the remake that were a step down from the original. The original’s casino fight scene is replaced by a less thrilling car chase and the final fight between the two main characters is more visually appealing than the remake’s. Again, each film has its strengths and weaknesses, and both are evenly matched.

One thing that was much better in the original was the soundtrack. The electronic style music fit much more with the fast-paced action than the rap/orchestral soundtrack of the remake. Moreover, the original’s color palate had much more variety than the remake’s.

So is the remake AS inferior to the original as critics are saying? I don’t think so. I mean, it has its flaws, but compared to most Hollywood remakes, I thought the filmmakers did a fine job. I can certainly see why fans of the original may find the remake inferior, but I feel that credit should be given where its due. Both “Brick Mansions” and “District 13” are absolute thrill rides, and I wouldn’t pass up either if you’re a fan of unique fight scenes and parkour.

Final Grade: B+

Oculus (R) : Not for the Squeamish

Score: 4.5/5

“Oculus” is one of those horror films that you rarely see in recent years: a wide-release scary movie with an actual sense of dread and horror. This along with last year’s “The Conjuring” and “You’re Next” could easily signify an improvement in Hollywood horror.

Starring up incoming actors Karen Gillan (appearing this summer in Guardians of The Galaxy) and Brenton Thwaits (appearing in this summer’s “Maleficent”), "Oculus" tells the disturbing tale of two siblings going face-to-face with a supposedly haunted mirror that haunted them as children. After the brother Tim (Thwaits) is released from a mental institution, his arguably more unstable sister Kaylie (Gillan) recruits him to take part in an experiment to prove that an antique mirror is responsible for the death of their mother when they were kids.

In the wrong hands, this plot could have been handled haphazardly and poorly. However, writer/director Mike Flanagan and co-writer Jeff Howard do a fine job in crafting a genuinely unsettling but well-made experience. The structure of this film is fantastic. While other films like “Twilight: Eclipse” and “Man of Steel” poorly execute flashbacks into the main story, “Oculus” actually uses flashbacks to its advantage. Throughout the movie, the audience is shown what happened to the main characters as children. Instead of showing all of the events chronologically, the writers make the wise choice of interspersing the events of each story (the past and the present) in a parallel fashion. For example, what happens at the beginning of the past’s story is shown back-to-back with what happens at the beginning of the present’s story. The events are shown in a way that both stories reach full circle by the end.  In many ways, the structure itself is symbolized by the mirror; the past and present are reflected and shown parallel to each other.

Moreover, the sheer unpredictability of the plot makes the terror even more effective.  Considering that the characters are both mentally traumatized by the events of their childhood, it isn’t sure at the beginning whether or not the mirror is actually haunted. Before the answer to that question is revealed, the main characters constantly have disorienting hallucinations. Whether it’s suddenly finding themselves in another room or seeing people that aren’t there, the story is reminiscent to a nightmare where nothing you do can stop what’s going to happen. No matter what the characters do, there is always a sense of not knowing what really happened and what didn’t. The Grade-A editing of this film certainly helps its effectiveness too.

Something else that makes this a superior modern horror film is the lower-than-average emphasis on cheap gore. While there are some bloody, grisly scenes in “Oculus,” their sporadic appearances make them even more terrifying when they show up. The violence is mixed perfectly with the creepiness to ensure a much more terrifying experience than the average moviegoer would expect. It is perhaps the first time in quite a while where I could take gory scenes seriously. The same goes for the performances.

Karen Gillan and Brenton Thwaits elevate a fine script into a masterful film with compelling, honest performances that make the film much more raw and fear-inducing. I for one am looking forward to seeing their blockbuster debuts this Summer; with performances like these, I’m sure they will make it to the big time in no time.

Indeed this film is quite good. The only criticism I really have is that some scenes felt a tad unnecessarily. I felt that they could have been cut out without disrupting the story. On the other hand, I'm not really sure if this is an actual problem with the film, or just another element of its mind-bending plot.   

While I’m not expecting “Oculus” to do HUGE numbers at the box office, I sincerely hope a sequel is made (a theatrical-level one, not a poor direct-to-DVD one). Without spoiling the film, the plot is tied up nicely at the end. Still, a fine franchise could certainly be made of this. If you’re a fan of disturbing, creepy, competent horror films, I’d highly suggest checking this one out. Be prepared though; I can honestly say it is one of the more disquieting films I’ve seen in recent years.

Final Grade: A

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (PG-13) : One of the Best

Score: 5/5

In the past few months there have been many reasons to be excited for the sequel to 2011’s “Captain America: The First Avenger.” From Black Widow’s promised prominence in the plot to the intrigue of how Captain America himself will adjust to the modern world, the hype for this movie has been overwhelming to say the least. On top of that were the glowing early reviews, some of which saying that “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is even better than “The Avengers.” I’m sure the question on everyone’s minds is: “does this live up to the hype?” You bet.

            The sheer amount of suspense and political intrigue in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” would make it a fine sequel on its own. However, not only does this film manage to surpass the excellent first installment, but in some ways surpass “The Avengers.”

            Taking place after the events of 2012’s “The Avengers,” Captain Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans reprising his role) struggles to adapt to a world shrouded in fear and obsessed with security. Now working for the government organization S.H.I.E.L.D, Rogers faces the conflict of being ill-informed of his recruiters’ ulterior motives and hidden agendas. The retro, simplistic era of the 1940s is far behind him, and Rogers must use his skills and wits to take down a possible conspiracy inside of S.H.I.E.L.D. Coming along for the ride are Black Widow (played reliably well by Scarlett Johansson) and newcomer The Falcon (played by Anthony Mackie of “Pain and Gain”).  Together they must take down a force none of them expected to face.

            Unlike previous Marvel films like “The Avengers,” and “Thor,” the plot of this movie is much more down-to-Earth. In today’s world of NSA controversy and outright paranoia, many plot elements in this film give it a very modern and relevant feel. In many ways, this is a stark contrast to the retro, swashbuckling feel that the first “Captain America” gave off. This is a perfect way to tell the Captain’s story; Steve Rogers has been thrust into the modern day against his will, and after the fantastical events of “The Avengers,” he is just now starting to be affected by today’s mentality of security. It’s indeed very interesting plot foundation for a superhero film.

            As well as being a fine continuation of the first film’s story, the new elements that this film brings to the “Captain America” series are quite good enough for the film to stand on its own. Even those who didn’t care for the first movie could get a kick out of them. Among the new characters is The Hawk, an ex-military superhero introduced in this film. This character is immensely likable, partly because of Anthony Mackie’s fine performance, but mostly because they introduce him from the very beginning and flesh out his character.

            Also joining the cast is veteran actor Robert Redford as the sinister Alexander Pierce. Redford is the type of villain that is rather refreshing to see in a superhero film: villains unaided by superpowers or violence and who carry the story with wits and malice alone.  He doesn’t need a mech-suit or psychic abilities, but he is a fine menace for the First Avenger to go up against.

 

            In addition to the fine new characters, every action set piece in this movie is both exhilarating and an absolute thrill to watch. What makes them even better is that they are accompanies by a gripping story with plenty of shocking and even emotional twists and turns. Even after seeing aliens invade New York in “The Avengers,” this movie’s more grounded approach to storytelling gives a sense that the stakes are higher than ever in the Marvel Universe. Fear not though, this movie is far from a dark one, and there is plenty of that good ole’ Marvel humor to give some levity.  I’m pretty sure that audiences won’t be prepared for how intense the story alone is.

            It’s not very common that audiences get an April movie that’s not only great, but exceptional. “Captain America: Winter Soldier” is indeed a masterpiece, and as much of a bold statement as it seems, it is one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen. The amount of sheer quality it possesses makes it an absolute must-see.

Final Grade: A+