Top 10 Tuesday - Favorite Movies Ever

I bit off more than I can chew.

I TRIED to narrow this list to 10 and absolutely could not. I had to settle with 25, lol. The biggest issue here is that most of these are representative of their particular genre (or subgenre). and cannot possibly be compared one to another. How do you compare "Blade Runner" with "Up"? Or even within the same genre, how do you compare "Lord of the Rings" (high fantasy) with "The Princess Bride" (humor fantasy)? You can't. So a quick list in no particular order of movies that I think are "must sees" with short comments (see if your favorite made the list):

Tombstone - Best. Western. Ever. Period. Also, the most quotable thanks to Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday and Power's Boothe's Curly Bill.

Goodfellas - The mob movie to end all mob movies. Screw "The Godfather", this is a true story. And a ruthless one at that. Marty's masterwork.

Almost Famous - The movie that brought Kate Hudson to the world. Funny, touching, brilliantly directed, amazingly acted, and the soundtrack is phenomenal.

Inglorious Bastards - Like "Jackie Brown" and "Kill Bill" before it, Tarantino is only getting better. I like "Django" as well, but the ending fell flat compared to this one. Perfect movie from start to finish.

Inception - So far, this is Nolan's best work to me. There's another on this list that many would say top that list, but I think that's only elevated because of one performance. This is even on performances, but what really stands out are the special effects that were done as practical as possible.

The Dark Knight - Might as well get this one out of the way now. Greatest superhero movie ever. Nothing else even comes close. The entire trilogy is amazing, but is really elevated by the late Heath Ledger. No one will be able to touch The Joker in live action for at least 10 years, if not 20.

Donnie Darko - Twisted and a WTF from beginning to end. Watch the Director's Cut and it will help you make sense of this messed-up tale.

Gladiator - Still holds up as one of my favorites today even though some of the CGI is a bit dated now. Great story, superb cast (Joaquin Phoenix should have gotten the Oscar), and just a beautiful movie. You go through every range of emotion through this movie.

Burn After Reading - I love the Coen Brothers, so this was a tough choice. "Fargo", "True Grit", "No Country For Old Men", and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" were all up there. Had to go with the one that makes me laugh hardest. If you haven't seen it, see it now.

Dial "M" for Murder - How can you have a list like this and not include Hitchcock? There are certainly loads of his movies to choose from, but this an "Suspicion" are my favorites. Dial "M" just edges the other out for being all in one apartment. Mastery.

A Christmas Story - Perfectly encapsulates being a kid at Christmastime better than any other movie. My absolute must Christmas movie.

Rocky Horror Picture Show - Yes, it's a musical...about a transvestite...who's making himself "a man"...but...whatever. It is funny, irreverent, and Tim Curry is electrifying.

Pacific Rim - Guillermo del Toro is one of my favorite directors and if you had asked me over a year ago what would have made this list, it would have been "Pan's Labyrinth". "Pan's" is a little dark and "Pacifc" just is the quintessential big monster movie. Just so much fun and such a detailed world.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - It is a testament to this movie that it knocked any Bond movie out of my list for a spy thriller. Every time I watch it, something new emerges.

Bram Stoker's Dracula - Definitive Dracula/vamipire movie. Too bad Keanu Reeves is in it.

His Girl Friday - More rapid-fire comments per minute than any movie in history, look it up.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang - Funny as hell. Gave Robert Downy, Jr. his start back and was the gateway for him getting "Iron Man". Watch it and you will see why.

Princess Bride - One of the most quotable movies ever.

Brotherhood of the Wolf - Part horror, part mystery, part "historical" drama. Kind of an Americanized foreign film, but amazing. Lots of other foreign films I love (like "Amelie"), but I keep going back to this one.

Exorcist - Scariest movie ever made. Hands down. Deal with it.

Empire Records - I've said it once, I've said it 100 times: it isn't a well made movie, but I love it! No plot, per se, just one quotable line right after another. Essential 90's movie.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy - Best of high fantasy except maybe for "Game of Thrones". Tolkein shaped our perception of fantasy and this is the movie adaptation of why.

Alien - Claustrophobia, scares, plot twists; it has it all. Started a whole new genre and has been relevant for over 30 years now.

Blade Runner - See above, lol. Notice this is the 3rd Ridley Scott film. Not a coincidence.

Up - I conclude with an animated feature. I change animated movies that I love like I change my underwear ("Roger Rabbit", "Aladdin", "Sword in the Stone", "Emperor's New Groove")...at least I did before "Up". Pixar at its best showing how dogs really must think. I still laugh hysterically for a good 15 minutes of it from the introduction of Dug to the 3 chasing him. Love it.

Food Blog Conundrum

This post is going to be fairly short, but expect a Tuesday Top 10 before the end of the day.

Recently a friend of mine asked a question when I was trying to come up with a theme for a Top 10 (and you know who you are). "You haven't done anything with food in a while, why not?" Ha asked. This is the same person that complimented how well this blog is written, so I could not really be mad. Well, the answer was a little complicated and I actually did not get into the long of it, but I will now.

The short answer was that I had been truly inspired by anything in a while and that film ones are actually a little easier to come up with. The long answer is that maintaining a food blog is incredibly expensive, time consuming, and, honestly, there are so many good ones out there to compete with.

First things first, I do not claim to come up with any recipe on here from scratch. I just can't do that. I am generally complimented on my cooking quite a bit, but nothing I make is from the ground up my recipe. Generally what I end up doing is picking up little things here and there from shows I watch religiously (i.e. "Martha Bakes", "Martha Stewart's Cooking School", "Pati's Mexican Table", "The Chew", and of course "Good Eats") and incorporating them into other recipes.

Like I've said before, I ALWAYS do the recipe as is first, then start messing with it or blending it with other recipes to get the best result IMHO. That's the thing, though, taste is purely subjective. I may like things sweeter than you do, think things are too salty when you don't, (<-use a="" added="" alton="" an="" and="" as="" brine="" brown="" but="" comma="" dammit="" do="" don="" flavor="" for="" garlic="" ginger="" his="" i="" if="" in="" instance="" integral="" is="" it.="" it="" just="" like="" lots="" loves="" of="" omit="" or="" oxford="" p="" recipe="" recipes.="" several="" t.="" t="" the="" too="" turkey="" uses="" you="">
But I digress. I will get on a mission to perfect something and will try recipe after recipe taking bits from one or another and techniques from YouTube videos until I have achieved nirvana for that recipe (an example of this will be the tiramisu I make which I will share later this week). A few months back I was on a mission to create a perfect corn dog. I failed miserably. I could not get the texture and flavor down. I finally gave up and went and bought frozen ones that I deep fried to perfection. I won't be trying that one again. Although I did find the perfect onion ring in the process (add some garlic powder and pepper to the flour and use panko bread crumbs)!

Other times I look for ways to simplify and quicken a recipe without losing flavor so that I don't have to cook all damn day. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE to cook and it relaxes me, but after a long day of work I don't want so spend another 8 hours doing spaghetti or fettuccine alfredo (recipe to come).

So, this stuff takes an inordinate amount of time and money and I end up falling back on some of my standards or recipes that don't require any tinkering, so there's no reason to post it here, because it isn't my recipe or it is already on here, lol.

I hope this gives you some insight into why it takes a while between cooking posts. I do have some I'd like to post in the near future. Some are listed somewhere above and some are not, but I promise to have them up fairly soon. I do wonder if I should just take the food out altogether, but I think at least a couple of people would kill me for taking down some of these recipes.

Top 10 Tuesday-Good Eats

Anyone who knows me, knows that when it comes to cooking, I worship the ground that Alton Brown from "Good Eats" walks on. I've only come across one or two recipes of his that I didn't like and I've done LOADS of his recipes. So, today I'm going to list my top 10 recipes from Good Eats (and, yes, there are lots of desserts) that I've tried and probably tweaked slightly (which I will provide the tweaks). This could change, of course, since I'm always trying a new one here and there. These are in no particular order, but I must say, I always get rave reviews for the first two.

NOTE: I always recommend doing the original recipe first EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN then make modifications the 2nd time. Even if you don't think an ingredient will taste good or is even necessary, it may be.

Fried Chicken

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/fried-chicken-recipe.html

If you look in the history of this blog, the full recipe (as well as tweaks) is in April of 2013, but basically, I use lard to fry with, use smoked paprika, and add some onion powder.

Spaghetti Bolognese

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/meat-sauce-and-spaghetti-recipe.html

Also in the history of this blog in May of 2013, because the original recipe takes a VERY long time, but I've simplified it without losing much of the flavor. I recommend original Prego sauce, btw.

The Chewy

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/the-chewy-recipe.html

Best chocolate chip cookies EVER! No adjustments necessary, except I usually press them down slightly with the palm of my hand once I dish them out. Definitely chill them (I usually make a little well in the middle so that it chills evenly) and use a disher to portion. If chewy isn't your thing, there is one for Puffy (cake-like) and Thin (thin and crispy). There is a gluten free recipe available too (for the chewy anyway).

Panzanella

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/tbl-panzanella-recipe.html

Essentially, this is a BLT in salad form. Especially if you cut back on the tomatoes by almost half (I think it is a bit much otherwise), increase the bacon by about 2 slices (use thick, peppered bacon too), and add about a tablespoon of mayo to the dressing. Also, use challah bread if you want a light and airy bread cube instead of a dense one.

Creme Brulee

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/creme-brulee-recipe.html

Easiest and best brulee you will ever have. No real changes. Just be sure and use a vanilla bean and the vanilla sugar. Oh and a water bath is essential when baking it.

Chicken Fried Steak

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/chicken-fried-steak-recipe.html

No changes here either. Just don't trust a recipe if it calls it "country fried steak". :)

Cheesecake

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/sour-cream-cheesecake-recipe.html

No changes here either. This isn't New York style cheesecake, just so you know. Just don't rush anything. As Alton says, "your patience will be rewarded."

Roasted Turkey

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/good-eats-roast-turkey-recipe.html

This one is a bit tricky because I use 2 recipes, actually. I use the brine (replacing half the vegetable stock with apple cider and omitting the ginger) from the above recipe, stuff it with a quartered apple, a couple of garlic cloves, a cinnamon stick, a quartered onion and a celery stalk microwaved for a minute or two with 1/3c water, then BAKE using the method from here (but I truss the bird too):

Perfect every time.

Baby Back Ribs

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/who-loves-ya-baby-back-recipe.html

No mods here either other than I up the garlic a bit, but I can't get enough garlic.

Tres Leche Cake

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/tres-leche-cake-recipe.html

New to my repertoire,but definitely a favorite. Use La Lechera evaporated and condensed milks if you can get them and I suggest cutting the sugar in the whipped cream down to 6 oz or less, it's just too sweet otherwise (to me, anyway).

A couple of honorable mentions:

Roasted brocolli (use Italian dressing in a pinch), pound cake (follow the recipe EXACTLY and before you add the dry it will look curdled, but that is ok), daiquiri (not that frozen crap, the real thing. Adjust the syrup to your liking and pour into a Coke for a Cuba Libre!), and last but not least bread and butter pickles.

Try and let me know if you like any of them!

American Zombification

No, I don't mean that everyone is becoming zombies from TV or for blindly following someone...although...

Actually, I'm talking the current zombie trend in pop culture. After the discussion last week about vampires, I thought I'd go a different direction and talk about a horror "villain" that doesn't have a unified lore. As I stated last week, most (good) vampire movies have some similar tendencies and lore that define the category and movies (or shows) that deviate from this lore run the risk of gathering a huge amount of haters and I'm one of them. Zombies, on the other hand, have a different set of rules depending on the "world" they inhabit. About the only thing you can count on anymore is that destroying the brain kills the zombie. That makes them something that can be fresh and interesting all the time, but also something that divides more people than it unites.

So let's dispel a few quote/unquote myths about the zombie horror genre and show why it is such a scattered lore:

George Romero is the grandfather of all zombie movies - this isn't really true unless you insert "modern" after the word all. Zombie movies have been around since "White Zombie" in 1936 (yes, the movie that Rob Zombie got his band name from); and if your definition of a zombie (we'll get to that in a minute) is a reanimated corpse, then "Frankenstein" in 1910 had one of those, so he only linked the two together. If he had just done that with "Night of the Living Dead", it probably would have been forgotten. That's not what made it interesting. Romero's zombie movies have always had something to say. "Night" was a metaphor for race relations just as "Dawn of the Dead" was about rampant consumerism. That's what made them great, not the zombies themselves.

Zombies eat brains - have you always thought that that was kind of a staple of the genre? Well, it hasn't been. In fact, no "classic" zombie film had that in it. What started that idea was a small part in "Return of the Living Dead"in 1985 (a personal favorite) where a severely decayed zombie groans "BRAINS!" at one point which just stuck from then on as "lore".

Zombies can drown - now here's a point of contention that leads to that point of no unifying lore. You've seen it in several instances that a zombie drowns in water. How? Unless you prescribe to a certain aspect that we will get to in the next section, zombies are dead and don't breathe, so how would they drown? Several movies ("Land of the Dead") and even "Walking Dead" have shown otherwise. Lucio Fulci's "Zombii 2" even has an infamous fight scene of a zombie walking on the ocean floor and encountering (and fighting) a shark!

Zombies are the undead - here's a big sticking point with me. That's generally what I consider to be a main tenet of the genre, but really it isn't. The term zombi itself came from the Caribbean, more specifically Haiti, where people were raised from the dead by the way of voodoo to do their master's bidding. Usually the bokor (witch doctor) is said to have trapped the person's soul so they can be controlled. It is even on the law books in Haiti that you can't zombifi someone. What really happens, though, is the person is drugged into a death like coma that lasts for days and then the person is dug up only to be brainwashed into thinking they are undead. Watch "The Serpent & The Rainbow" which is an excellent movie that delves into that. So can we really say they are not zombies if it is drugs or an infection? Hence the discrepancy over "28 Days Later" being a zombie movie or not (most "purists" and even director Danny Boyle argue not). Which brings me to my last point.

Zombies are slow shambling (un)dead - this is the other sticking point with me. Purists HATE the (fairly) recent advent of the fast moving zombie. They mostly think the shambling zombie is the only way to go, which I agree with, if they are the dead coming from the ground, but the virus style just doesn't jive with me when they shamble. I think people one day waking up and us being over-run with shambling reanimated corpses is a little more than far-fetched unless the incubation time is outrageous or we're all already infected. Otherwise, transmission from person to person takes time and a shambling zombie is too easy to get away from if there isn't a horde. This is what made "28 Days Later" so terrifying. How realistic it was with speed of transmission and speed of turning combined with fast moving "zombies". And that was just "rage". I, for one, like the fast movers AND the slow shamblers, just depends on if the world they are in makes sense for that speed.

And that's all I really have to say about them. Just hope I could shed some light on zombies and how they are an ever-evolving lore that some people take just a little too seriously. LOL.

Vampires in Cinema

I've always been a big fan of vampires. I LOVE vampire movies, but I also LOATHE vampire movies. I'm really glad that the horror genre has begun to move on from them especially since mainstream started making vampire movies into these horrible, mopey teenage romance movies. Ugh. And it isn't the romance that is a problem, that's always been a part of vampires. There's a certain Gothic romance element that SHOULD be integral to the story.

So what does the right vampire story entail? Lore. The lore is really important. When I read "Dracula" in middle school (the unabridged version, btw) it entirely shaped the way I thought of vampires. Yes, there was a romantic quality to him, but there was also a vicious need that drove Dracula. The movie kind of made him more sympathetic than he really was in the book, but there was still that animalistic urge that made him want something and stop at nothing to get it. Beyond that, it laid the groundwork for what was necessary for vampires to maintain themselves (dirt from the homeland, the coffin in Lucy's case, blood, and minions), the shapes he could take (bat, wolf, and smoke) as well as what could damage them (crosses, silver, stake to the heart, beheading, roses (look it up), holy water, and fire). No sunlight to be found.

Let's discuss that last one. That little change been added in the last 100 years. Nowhere in Stoker's masterpiece is it said that vampires are damaged by sunlight. Dracula walks around in daylight and has no real effect, although it has been said that he is not as powerful. No, that part of lore was added by "Nosferatu" in 1922. And honestly, I really don't mind that. There has to be some changes from time to time in order to keep the stories fresh and new. Somewhere along the line the killing of the "master" will free the subjects was added and used to great effect in movies like "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night (1985)" (2 of my other favorites). (SPOILER ALERT) "Dracula 2000" added that Dracula had a new back story (which was never really given in the book, just the movie version's Vlad the Impaler back story) of being Judas Iscariot which made many of the things he feared make more sense so I actually liked those changes.

What really rubs me the wrong way? The half-blood vampire stuff. The half vampire, half werewolf stuff. The sparkly, brooding, "vegetarian" vampire stuff. Or taking the Dracula story and warping it into something completely different that just uses the names (I'm staring daggers at you, "Dracula" TV show). I understand trying to move things into a new time and place since much of the Gothic style has been played to death from the '60s and '70s Hammer films, but do it right. Even with all it's faults, True Blood (or more accurately the BOOKS the show was originally based on since the show jumped the shark somewhere in season 3) actually stuck with much of the original lore with a few little twists to make it interesting. Don't bring back "Dark Shadows" and make it a farce! When they brought it back in the '90s, it was AWESOME. It was present day and it worked, not this pseudo '60s in the 2000s crap. I digress.

I just want my old school vampires back. I'm hoping this new "Dracula Untold" will maybe move in the right direction, but I doubt it. Especially since Vlad Tepes was not an inspiration for Dracula in the first place. Plus, it seems they've gone really Hollywood with it all. Ugh. If you want to see good vampires anymore, you've got to delve into the past. Seek out the movies I've mentioned above plus "Fright Night 2" and a lesser known series of movies called "Subspecies" which are really good (if not really dated now, lol). The first 2 movies of that one are great and then they decline, but still, good twists on the old formula.

Let me know if I've forgotten any of your favorites!

The Rise and Fall of the Summer Blockbuster

In the summer of 1975, "Jaws" opened and the term Blockbuster was born. Before that, there had been plenty of runaway hits that had made plenty of money, but nothing that people had continually gone back to see just for the thrill of it. There had been plenty of movies before then that had made a significant amount of money (even more than Jaws), but this was a turn in Hollywood's thinking towards making a film and marketing it. Action packed and generally more fast paced than other movies, Blockbusters are generally marketed towards a younger crowd (that, conveniently, is not in school over the summer). Budgets ballooned on the promise of a big return at the box office.

As time went on, the budgets went more towards bigger and better special effects that are way easier to market and less towards the script and plot. Thus, they began to get less intelligent to the point of most critics HATING the summer movie season more and more because the overall quality of the movies was waning. The Holidays had their own Blockbuster season as well with more family friendly fare launching during the period, just not to quite as big of a box office haul. Critics didn't hate this as much because it also coincided with the push for Academy Award films, so there was a good mix. Summers, however, with rare exception got sillier, more action bloated, and paper-thin plots until in the 2000s they just were shells of movies for marketing only.

Then the public started to get a little wiser, probably because they were thinking more with their wallets. Bigger budgeted movies were getting to be more of a gamble with mediocre openings or huge second week drop offs as people were more choosy in what they saw. This funnily corresponded with the rise of Geek culture. Suddenly, there was room for the Intelligent Blockbuster. Comic book movies started becoming popular and there was almost no such thing as a bonafide movie star anymore. People were no longer the draw. It was either the director (like Quentin Tarantino) or the actual plot that started drawing in the people.

So, now, in the last couple of years you've had much more intelligent fare doing increasingly well and the schlock that used to do so well before is an even bigger gamble for Hollywood. Christopher Nolan's movies are the new idea of a Blockbuster and Tarantino has begun to release his movies during the summer and studios are moving films around to get away from his weekend. That's pretty powerful stuff. Summer is also becoming less and less of an exclusive time to release the big movies. with the start and end of the season starting and ending earlier and later (respectively) every year. Look at this year, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" opened in March and, honestly, there are big films almost every week for the rest of the year. Probably won't be much of a drop off until January (when all the Academy Award bait will be coming out). Within the next few years, there may not even BE a drop off in a particular month as they see that people will go see a good movie REGARDLESS of the time of year.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) - Review

Not much to say in preface, other than I love the "Planet of the Apes" franchise. I love the originals (even though they got campy and more silly as the movies progressed) and I even really like the Tim Burton attempt at a reboot (minus the ending that is so WTF, even Burton can't explain it). So when they attempted a 2nd reboot I met it with a mix of apprehension and geek glee, I mean it is rare for Hollywood to reboot something and it work with very few glaring exceptions like the Ocean's movies, Batman, and Star Trek. I loved it though. For a mainstream movie it was thoughtful, meaningful, and touching. So I met this new one with a bit of trepidation. Would it continue the first's thought provoking kind of story or would it fall to the pressure of being a summer blockbuster with lots of action and nothing to say (which will be the focus of an upcoming post)? Let's find out.

Summary from IMDB:

"In the wake of a disaster that changed the world, the growing and genetically evolving apes find themselves at a critical point with the human race."

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=nv_sr_1 

Technical (4.5) - An almost flawless action flick. This is a major credit to Matt Reeves who has only really done three features: 1 rom-com ("The Pallbearer") and two low-budget horror movies ("Cloverfield" and "Let Me In"). Granted they were all decent enough, but no one would have believed he coulda pulled off such a effects heavy movie so well. Speaking of effects, they are fantastically realized with natural movement of the apes, the sets which I'm sure were mostly CGI don't look it, and the action sequences are well staged and realized. The musical score is absolutely AMAZING with its major nods to the music in the original. Every penny of the rather large budget was well spent and seen on the screen. The only real issue here I had, and therefore the .5 deduction, is the sound. Now I saw it in a Dolby Atmos theater which was absolutely amazing with the natural surround sound, so it wasn't the effects, it was the voices of the apes. Not the way they were realized either, but the levels and how unnatural they seemed in the flow of the movie. It was a little too obvious that they were either completely recorded separately or recorded at the same time, but altered considerably before hitting the screen. Just took me out almost every time they spoke.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - The real star of the film. It is intelligent, organic, and heartfelt. There are lots of parallels between the apes and humans that are subtly drawn and everyone acts in a way that makes sense for their position. Conversations flow naturally and smoothly with no one acting out of character. There are several nods to the original movies, though as with "Rise" they are kind of veering slightly from cannon, but it makes loads more sense than how the original dealt with the origins of the overthrow. I think they are basically treating it as if the sequels never existed and just treating the original "Planet of the Apes" as the endgame. Which is fine with me, they got kinda campy and nonsensical as things went on. It does, however, continue the original's tradition of being deep and meaningful beyond what is overtly the storyline. My only issue with the story is that they humans are not as fleshed out as I would like. We spend loads more time with the apes and how their relationships are defined than with the humans. I feel like there was way more written, but they started having to cut out parts and had to use way more shortcuts to the character's motivations like the slightly out of place break down by Gary Oldman at one point after finding a picture. Just rings of having to truncate for time.

Acting (4) - Honestly there's not much going on with the acting. The humans are basically just passable. No one really is that great. Gary Oldman is solid as usual, but he doesn't have loads of screen time and the only other one I think is slightly above average is Kirk Acevedo as the resident untrusting asshole. Otherwise they aren't amazing, but aren't bad. They serve their purpose and that's about it. The apes really steal the show with Andy Serkis in the center as Caesar. Someone please give this man an Oscar, because he acts more with a rubber suit and dots all over him than 99% of Hollywood. I doubt they will ever change the rules and allow him to be nominated in anything that isn't a technical award, but he deserves way more. I'm sure he'll eventually get some sort of special award, but that isn't really fair.

Tilt (5) - I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It isn't perfect, but it damn sure is one of the best movies of the year so far. Never once did I look at my watch or nod off (and I've been working overnights, so I'd only had about 2 hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours). It really is that good. It wasn't perfect, but sometimes it can't be. I think the only way to make the movie they really wanted to would have been to make it over 3 hours. Not that I would have cared, but the studios rarely will allow over 2.5. Definitely see it, but watch "Rise" one more time before you go, there are several things that reference it.

Total Score: 4.5

Estar Gwars

Once again I am back because I feel I have something to say and it's about one of the things that EVERYONE seems to have an opinion about: Star Wars Episode VII. Like I normally say, this isn't an argument to defend the movie, just to make you think more about it. I'm gonna bring up a few things that people are skeptical about with it and see if maybe I could shed some light on those issues.

Let's begin.

"It can't be good that Disney is behind it."

I know it is kinda fashionable to pick on Disney, but why is that? Yes they are a big conglomerate that has loads of money and continues to pick up properties left and right (and geek properties at that), but what exactly have they gotten wrong lately? Marvel has gotten better with the Avengers continuity being great so far (including their animated outings) and their cartoons are way better than they've been in years. Part of the reason for the latter is a bit of a detriment to the one thing that has gone down under their "parentage": Pixar. The reason for that, though, is that most of the original team from Pixar has moved on. Brad Bird is doing live action ("Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" was directed by him under J.J. Abrams as producer), so is Peter Docter, Steve Jobs has passed, and John Lasseter and Edwin Catmull have gone on to be in charge of all Disney animation.Only Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich are really still doing the hands-on and that's a harder job when you aren't surrounded by the others anymore.

But, honestly, we aren't talking animation anyway. Now, Star Wars movies are not R-rated and are pretty family friendly to begin with, so what exactly is the problem? Even if you want to go down that road, Disney owns Touchstone pictures who have done "Con Air", "Sister Act", "The Prestige", "Dead Poet's Society", and "The Insider". They also owned Miramax and therefore Dimension films during their heyday, producing "Scream", "The Faculty", and the Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez films. So they have a very diverse pedigree that doesn't have a huge track record of stifling creativity (except maybe when Michael Eisner was in charge). So really, nothing to fear there.

"George Lucas isn't involved, oh no."

And what is exactly wrong with that? He almost killed the franchise himself! Episodes I and II were awful and he was in charge of them from start to finish. Plus, he allowed the lore to get muddled and the canon to get contradictory. Soooooo, can they really screw it up more? Nope. Canon is being streamlined and made into a more cohesive narrative which is a good thing (although don't get me started on Korriban being made into Moraban) and they hired Lawrence Kasdan of "Empire" and "Raiders" fame to write, so I think the story is in good hands.

"J.J. Abrams? What the hell?"

This seems to be a main sticking point and one I really don't get. What exactly has he done wrong? Sure he started with "Felicity" (which I never watched, but I'm told was actually pretty good), but he's also created some of the biggest Sci-Fi shows in the last decade and a half: "Alias", "Lost", and my personal favorite "Fringe". He also is a huge fan of the era that spawned the original Trilogy. "Super 8" was a love letter to the works of Spielberg and he has said himself that he's afraid to screw up "Star Wars" because he loves it so much. He didn't feel the same way about "Star Trek" and I think he did a bang up job with those.

Speaking of reboots, he has a history of rebooting franchises that have strayed considerably in a successful way. As I said, I liked the "Star Trek" reboot and felt it had a reverence for the originals that had not been seen in a while. Most forget he also rebooted the "Mission: Impossible" movies after John Woo completely disregarded what made the franchise so good in the first place and made a flashy action packed movie that had more to do with Bourne than M:I (for the record, I like the Bourne movies, they just aren't what a M:I movie should be). Abrams made a movie that really felt like an extension of the first movie and took the series to a whole new level. In fact, I'd kinda like to see him get a crack at the Bond franchise. Sure he's not the most talented director ever and he certainly loves those lens flares that I'm not fond of, but he isn't Uwe Boll. He respects the source material and is afraid of failure. Sounds good to me.


So give him a chance. Give the movie a chance. I doubt highly it could ever be as bad as "The Phantom Menace".

The Nirvana Paradox

I know, it's been a couple of weeks. I had been planning on seeing some of the new movies like "Godzilla" and "X-Men", but haven't so I didn't feel like I had much to say. I do, however, have something to say about something a little random.

Nirvana. Lots of talking about them recently since they've just been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but let's talk about their contribution to said rock and roll history. I'm not out to convince you of anything in particular or to make you "hate" your favorite band (if it is), no, I just want you to maybe re-evaluate and question what the music industry wants you to believe.

I want to start by admitting that I've never been a huge Nirvana fan. That isn't to say that I don't like them, just that I'm not someone who rushed out and bought anything they did. In fact, I never bought any Nirvana albums. I liked them enough to listen to them on the radio, but never thought they were so great that I needed to listen to them over and over again.

Which brings me to my first point. Were they really all that talented? I think not. Now, Dave Grohl is an exception (which I will talk about in a minute), but honestly I'm not convinced that they were. The songwriting is actually terrible and stupid even for a rock song (which are not known for being terribly poetic). And the simple 3 chord progression (which admittedly is a staple of rock) wasn't ground breaking in any way. So what was so great about it? Well, it was the complete opposite of everything that had been happening for the decade before. The late '80s and first year '90s was just characterized by hair bands and the rise of hip-hop. Then Nirvana hit. Grunge was the exact opposite of all that. It struck a chord with the youth of the time (including lots of my friends) and was the latest trend in a long line of disenfranchised youth music, which is what rock has embodied in some way for generations by punk, goth, and more recently emo.

So we have a new genre that emerges from Seattle and the first band that breaks is immortalized as

who brought it to the world. Sound familiar? Sex Pistols anyone? What if it has been Alice In Chains or Soundgarden? Would the world hold them in such high esteem? I think so, but then again, it could be that Kurt Cobain's death was just timely enough to send them into legendary status. Think about it, they only had 2 mainstream albums and were at the very height of stardom, so they never really had a chance to fizzle out and all the controversy and theorizing about Kurt's supposed suicide kept them in the news for a long time (hell, even in the last six months as the photos have been released).

If he hadn't died, what might have happened? Well, there wouldn't have been the Foo Fighters, that's for sure. Dave would never have been allowed to blossom on his own since he was always overshadowed by his eccentric front man. Also, I really feel they would have fallen flat on their face in terms of their following. Sure there would have been die-hard fans and they could have continued for some more time, but I'm sure the trends would have left them behind. I would point to another band of the '90s that had more #1 rock singles than anyone before and now is all but forgotten (except by hardcore fans like myself) which is Collective Soul. Had Ed Roland passed after "Dosage" would they have the same fame as Nirvana? Hmmmm.

I know I rambled and probably could have written better, but I just wanted to get a few points across. Hopefully you will re-think Nirvana's role in history.

Throwback Thursday-Gosford Park (2001)

I don't really want to make this a long post, so I will get right to the point. Today won't be a full-on review, because this movie is over 10 years old, but I do want to kind of convince you to try it out since it's one of my all-time favorite movies. Firstly, a little bit about the movie:

Summary from IMDB:

"Multiple storylined drama set in 1932, showing the lives of upstairs guest and downstairs servants at a party in a country house in England."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280707/

"Gosford Park" is a quintessentially Robert Altman film that follows in the footsteps of "Mansfield Park" and, more to the point, "Upstairs Downstairs", but really is its own beast. Altman was one that didn't dwell on the small details, he was more about capturing the soul of the moment. His movies always were made with lots of ad-libbing from the principles and essentially the art of the conversation. Sure there is a murder mystery involved which serves as the "plot" to drive the story (or really stories) and ensure that no one leaves while the various storylines (that mostly revolve around motive) play out, but it is the conversations between the various characters that really defines the narrative. What's kind of cool is that it is almost entirely shown from the servant's perspective. There is ALWAYS a servant around listening.

What I absolutely love about "Gosford Park" is that nothing is blatantly spelled out for the audience. Everything comes down to gestures, stretches of silence, reading between the lines, and snide, under-handed remarks. You have numerous storylines that twist and turn around each other that sometimes relate one to another and sometimes do not. They all play out well and without leaving a bunch of loose ends. Sure, some are left for the viewer to fill in the blanks, but that's intentional. Especially because, even though I've seen the movie probably 15 times, every time I see it, I make new connections and epiphanies as to what is really going on. It's hard to even keep track of who's who (since the servants are mostly called by the name of their "upstairs" counterpart) and how they are related to each other in the first viewing, but it gets much easier on repeated viewings. The writer of the movie (who won an Oscar for this) is who writes "Downton Abbey" so if you like that, you might really like this movie.

The actors are all superb. Many you know well like Maggie Smith (Prof. McGonagall!), Ryan Phillipe, Helen Mirren (Queen Elizabeth II), Clive Owen (who shoulda been Bond), and Michael Gambon (Dumbledore!); others like Charles Dance (Tywin), Tom Hollander (Pirates movies), and Bob Balaban (several Wes Anderson and Christopher Guest films) you'll go "Hey! It's that guy that was in that thing with...". Then there's the people that must only be famous in England. Still, they all are great in their respective roles. No one stands out as particularly bad, though Phillipe is out of his depth with the rest of the cast.

I really don't have much more to say about it. Watch it and see for yourself. If you don't like it, sorry to have wasted your time, but if you like tight scripts with lots of dialogue and don't mind a movie where nothing really "happens" other than conversations, then see it.

Damn, now I'm going to have to watch it AGAIN...

The Amazing Spider-Man 2-Review

Yes, I finally saw it. You will quickly see that I really didn't like it, so let's just get that out of the way. I think the world is realizing it too, because when your tent-pole movie gets beaten in its second week (after a 60% drop, btw) by a comedy with Zac Efron (nothing against him or the movie which I've heard is really funny) then you have a problem. Sony is really going to have to re-evaluate going forward after this.

What I find most intriguing, however, is how people I talk to say it was "ok" or "good", but then when we start talking details, they really didn't like it as much as they thought they did. That just goes to prove that it is not an awful movie, but has major glaring issues that most moviegoers quickly forget because of the pretty, shiny parts.

I'm going to try and limit spoilers here to things that are at the very least inferred in the trailer, but when you're doing a negative review people are going to want examples so you have been forewarned.

Summary from IMDB:

"Peter Parker runs the gauntlet as the mysterious company Oscorp sends up a slew of supervillains against him, impacting on his life."

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1872181/ 

Technical (2) - I had a difficult time with the scoring here because much of the fault of the movie falls into this category, but so does some of its triumphs. Like I said above, the faults get super-ceded by the wins by most people, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. To me, the editing was a huge problem. Especially early on, the scenes jump frenetically from one to another without much breathing room or time to absorb what you've just seen. I feel like they made a 3+ hour movie, then realized it was way too long and then started to cut out anything that wasn't absolutely necessary to the set-up (not of the main plot, mind-you, but another type of set-up which we will talk about in script). Not good.

Another thing that got annoying quickly was product placement. I've said before that it is just part of movie making, but when you're only showing one brand of product it is noticeable so much faster. Any frame they can do it, the SONY (or VAIO) logo is prominently displayed. I was a little surprised that they didn't shoe-horn in some other products that didn't flow organically into the story, but maybe they realized the mistake in doing that a few movies ago.

There's more problems, but the one that immediately took me out of the movie was the CGI. It actually is really well done for most of the movie. Especially when he's web-slinging around New York. The webs he shoots really look real now (except for one silly moment towards the end) and most of the action sequences look pretty good. There were at least 2 incidences, however, where the CGI was just unbearably bad. I'll only mention the face of Rhino in his suit looks badly photoshopped in. UGH.

Script/Dialogue (1) - This one is just bad. Here's the thing: this is a 2+ hour set-up for The Sinister Six and many other Spider-Man related movies for the unforeseen future. Sony knew this one would make money after the success of the first one, so they just crammed as much name-checking as they could into it. What purpose did Rhino serve in the plot? Nothing. Why was B.J. Novak in the movie? To set up for a future villain. Green Goblin shows up for all of 10 minutes and only serves to do the one thing we all knew was going to happen in this movie and then set-up for The Sinister Six. Electro just kinda flails around causing destruction, but isn't really given a clear motivation or even a reason why all of the sudden he hates Spider-man. Plus, his origin is eerily reminiscent of Riddler in Batman Forever.

Speaking of Electro, why is he suddenly Dr. Manhattan? And how did he suddenly get a costume with lightning bolts on it 10 minutes after his escape? The mind boggles. And don't get me started on the eye-rolling way they come up with to eliminate the threat of Electro. He just absorbed the entire power grid of New York and you are gonna get rid of him how again?

My biggest problem with this iteration of Spider-man is the absence of "With great power comes great responsibility". Yet again, they dance all around it without saying it. And this all-consuming quest to find out what his father did shouldn't be the driving force of who he is, it should be the guilt of not stopping his uncle's killer. Why is GWEN STACY'S FATHER'S ghost haunting him instead of Uncle Ben? GRRRRRRRRRR.

I will say that the Gwen Stacy/Peter Parker love story is actually done fairly well and sets up the payoff at the end pretty good, but there's so much other ridiculousness surrounding it, that it gets lost. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the camp. I can thoroughly enjoy camp done right and even welcome it in a comic book movie (since we're so used to the "realistic" comic book movie now), but this stuff is just plain silly.

Oh, and Peter Parker was never the cool kid. EVER. Period.

Acting (3) - I've been droning on and on, so I will try and keep this portion pretty short because most everyone is decent except Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn (I always want to add an 'e' as in Ozzy) who chews the scenery like crazy, overacting every scene he is in and looks terrible as the Green Goblin to boot. And while the chemistry between Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield is riveting (giving lots of life to the actual drivel they are reciting) the scenes between DeHaan and Garfield have the opposite effect, just showcasing how idiotic it is that these two guys who haven't seen each other in almost 10 years would call each other besties. Dumb.

Sally Field is great as always (even though she's terribly miscast and Aunt May is not used to correct effect); Jamie Foxx is passable; Colm Feore as always is great, but completely under-utilized; ditto for Paul Giamatti and B.J. Novak; and the rest of the support cast works their roles fine.

Tilt (3) - Can't say I completely hated it. I rolled my eyes and pleaded with the screen saying "oh come on!" more than once, but it wasn't an absolutely awful movie. I had to take it as it was, a set-up for the future. As was the first one. Sony needs to stop thinking with their wallets entirely and if the performance of this movie (which echoes the performance of Spider-man 3, though not with even as strong an opening weekend) isn't enough of a wake-up call for them, I don't know what will be.

Total Score - 2.25

Review-Frozen

I already know that I will (and already have) get flak for this review, but I stand by what I say. Maybe someone will have a point I missed, but that really doesn't change much about my feelings about the movie. I must say that much of the issue stems from people over-praising it before I saw it, so that may have had an impact on my feelings, but the more I think about the movie, the more firm I am about said opinion.

Here we go.

Summary from IMDB:

"Fearless optimist Anna teams up with Kristoff in an epic journey, encountering Everest-like conditions, and a hilarious snowman named Olaf in a race to find Anna's sister Elsa, whose icy powers have trapped the kingdom in eternal winter."

Frozen (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294629/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Technical (4) - A beautiful film. I will absolutely give it that. With touches that echo the time and area the film is supposed to be in without going too overly ornate and overblown, the backgrounds and costumes are really well done. The textures are amazing with leather looking like real leather and metallics having a realistic sheen (and the lighting moves realistic as well). Character's skin looks the most natural I've ever seen with real looking freckles and flushing from the cold and embarrassment looks natural as well. Of course the ice and particle effects are done flawlessly (as they better be in a movie called Frozen).

I found it interesting that in the special features that they make reference to one of the original Disney animators pushing for this story ("The Snow Queen" from Hans Christian Anderson) to be made into a movie AND feature at Disneyland, but that the makers of the film obviously didn't use any of his work because they didn't know about it until after the fact. Some stuff coincidentally looks similar, but that's about as far as that goes. I kinda wish they'd done some research and pilfered some of it, because it was AMAZING.

The music, which is a main feature of the film, is decent if not particularly memorable. I did find it a little disappointing that there was just so damn much of the singing and, with the exception of 2 songs (which I will discuss in the script part more), are mostly forgettable songs (more on that in script as well).

Script/Dialogue (1) - Here's where it all just falls apart for me. And here be the spoilers. There are lots of plot holes (and yes I realize this is a kid's movie, so this is all a moot point). Where to start. I guess at the beginning. I was kinda disappointed in the establishment of the sisters at the beginning. You can just say that they short-handed them as sisters, but you don't really get why Anna holds Elsa in such regard. They didn't show much of their relationship before "the incident" and they didn't interact much after that except for Elsa saying "no" to the quick engagement. So why would Anna be so quick to defend Elsa? She has no real reason to do so.

There's no real "villain" of the movie in the Disney sense, but basically Elsa takes on the role. Sure there's Hans (which we will get to in a minute), but she is the main antagonist here. I get the whole "misunderstood" part, but here's the thing: they don't establish very well the whole premise that she shouldn't stifle and hide who she is because the big song that everyone loves highlights when she runs away and hides. "Let It Go" is not a bad song, just placed in the wrong part of the movie. It highlights her running from the problems and shutting herself away. Great message for kids. And speaking of bad messages for kids during songs, the only other song in the movie that is memorable is "Fixer Upper" which gives little girls the impression that he's not perfect, but you can change him (or her). Overlook those glaring flaws, because he's gonna be so capable of change. I get that they're referring to smaller flaws, but is a kid really going to distinguish?

And lastly, Hans. Hans, Hans, Hans. His motivations just don't quite gel with his actions. Why did he go after Elsa at all? She was gone and her reputation was completely shattered. What did he gain by going after her? The whole thing is a little secondary as well. It serves only one decent point: don't rush into anything too quickly.

Oh, and one more thing. Poor Sven is horribly under-utilized, as was Kristoff.

There's probably more, but I'm tired of writing.

Acting (5) - All the voice acting is pretty damn good especially for most of them being relative unknowns (except on Broadway and "Glee"). I was really surprised how well Kristen Bell can sing! I'm also glad Idina Menzel is getting some recognition, because she is really good. I really don't have much else to say on this front because there isn't much more to say.

Tilt (3) - Despite me railing against it quite a bit here, I didn't HATE it. I just think it isn't nearly as good as everyone made it out to be ("Brave" was a helluva lot better). I'm sure the hype around the movie really colored my perceptions, but it still wasn't that great. An average movie at best, but watch "Despicable Me", "Tangled", or "Wreck-It Ralph" instead. LOL.

Total Score - 3.25

Why Marvel's The Avengers Is NOT The Greatest Comic Book Movie Ever

Like I promised yesterday, I'm gonna outline why The Avengers isn't the greatest comic book movie of all time. That isn't to say that I don't like and enjoy the movie, it just isn't as flawless as the world makes it out to be. I'm sure this discussion will piss some people off, but honestly I don't really care. I concede that as with most things, what is the "best" is a purely subjective thing that can never be proven. That doesn't mean that it can't be categorically proven to NOT be the best.


I need to preface the rest of this by saying I will be comparing it often to another movie that is often brought up as a retort: The Dark Knight. I'm using this movie for a few reasons: 1) it is a fantastic example of the reasons The Avengers fails, 2) I've always liked DC comics more than Marvel (I will admit bias), 3) it is the best comic book movie ever. Ha.

The Major Plot Hole

I'll start with the weakest argument, but probably the one that bothers me the most every time I watch The Avengers. There's one huge, glaring plot hole in the movie that most viewers just accept and move on. Thor already knows about the Chitauri coming when he shows up. Everyone just accepts this fact and moves on with no further explanation. How does he know? What more does he know about them? Where do they come from? Why are they following Loki? If he knew all of this, why has he only come to confront Loki when Loki comes to Earth and not before? Instead we get a casual reference to "he has an army" and quickly they move on and the rest of the team (and subsequently the viewer) are whisked off to something else. This is yet another movie that caters to the ADHD viewer. 

Wait, There Is No Plot

Speaking of ADHD, the "plot" just moves from one thing to another rather quickly to mostly just set up another action sequence. Yes, I get this is an action flick, but there's not much else here. Just think about it, any time they start to develop anything other than the all-these-disparate-entities-need-to-band-together-to-fight-this-sorta-vague-threat it is cut really short and moves on. There's a point in the middle of the movie that the motives of S.H.I.E.L.D. begin to be questioned and it devolves into a bitch-fest that ends up serving that very basic plot and nothing else. It even gets revisited and actually becomes the whole central plot of The Winter Soldier.
Comic books have always had something to say. On the face they have always been just really well drawn (and longer) comic strips, but there has always been something deeper. Nationalism, racism, political unrest, and sociology have all been thoroughly explored in the pages of comics. They are a place for the writers and artists to vent frustrations or safely have conversations about the most controversial subjects of our time without (at least most of the time) doing it overtly. The Dark Knight explored several of these types of issues both overtly and subtly; like overreaching of government surveillance (the echo-locator), socioeconomic disparity (the Joker's many sociological experiments), and political climate change. Winter Soldier tackled some of these same issues and that's why it is more successful than The Avengers in my book.

All that The Avengers did was barely touch on distrust of the government and then swiftly swept it under the rug to focus on rag-tag-group-needs-a-reason-to-band-together-to-save-the-world. Like THAT hasn't been done 100s of times before.

Action, Action, Action

My last point is more of a summation of the previous two. This movie was made by a petulant child playing with blocks. He sets them up, knocks them down, rinse, repeat. The action sequences are beautiful and really well executed, but nothing really happens between them other than the set up for another action sequence. I get that this is an action movie, but I'm left wanting more. I will say that I just don't care for non-stop action movies and this one at least let you breathe a little between, but it just has very little meat for me. The Dark Knight has short bursts of action that use up all the drama prior to them to allow the action to punctuate rather than dictate. The opposite happens in The Avengers. The action dictates the plot and pacing not the other way around. Again, much of this point is just personal preference, but that's the nature of a blog.

In conclusion, I hope I've brought up some points that will make you rethink your position on The Avengers. Notice that I never said The Avengers was a bad movie because it isn't. I really enjoy the movie for what it is: a fun popcorn movie. Just don't try and make it what it isn't: the greatest comic book movie ever.

Review-Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I know, I know. Been a year since I posted last. I've been thinking of starting it up again for a while, but really didn't have something I really wanted to talk about. I thought overall it was a weak year for movies last year, so I wouldn't have had very many reviews (not enough movies drew me to the Theater, good or bad). This year looks to be much better and I have some nagging thoughts I want to vent here. I'll pop a few reviews in from last year here and there that people need to see.

To the topic at hand, I want to start by saying I really loved this one. I have a hard time deciding if this one or the first "Captain America" was better, but I certainly can say that after much reflection, both are decidedly better than "The Avengers". I don't want to get into it here, but I'm starting to really despise "The Avengers" for being called the greatest comic book movie ever (Next post will be more on that).

Summary from IMDB:

"Steve Rogers struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier."

(I will say that that very last line is not clearly defined in the movie)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/?ref_=hm_cht_t1

Technical (5) - Almost flawless. Especially considering the pedigree of the directors (Community and You, Me, and Dupree?!?), this is a phenomenal feat. I only had a small quibble with editing in one small scene that stuck in my head, but otherwise everything here works like gangbusters. The CGI is top-notch, the action sequences are well staged and edited, and the pacing (which somewhat has to do with scripting, too) is great. They know where to speed up and when to slow down. This isn't a non-stop action movie; there's room to breathe and get to know these characters and their motivations a little more. What's most interesting is the shift in tone and style from the first movie. It is really amazing that it works as well as it does. You go from a retro, sepia-tone, weekly serial style movie to a modern stylish action movie with a darker, more sinister tone and deliberate nods to the past movie that don't feel forced. It works very well and adds to the idea that Steve is a man out of time. I was slightly bothered by Cap's new uniform as the movie opened (star, but no red and white stripes like some of the comics), but there was a deliberate reason for it (you'll have to see it to know why I say that). So if you haven't seen the movie, give details like that a little time and it will make sense in the end.

One other little quibble that I can't fault the movie for because it has become so commonplace is product placement. There were several instances of blatant product placement (at least they were all American companies in a Captain America movie!) to the point where it made my eye twitch, but it didn't kill the movie. Mebbe I will post about that at a future date.



Script/Dialogue (5) - This is a really tight script from start to finish. I've heard some issues raised about the titular Winter Soldier missing for chunks of the movie, but I disagree. I think he's used sparingly in the beginning very deliberately as he is described as a "ghost". I was a bit disappointed that they didn't hold his identity secret in the lead-up (even though I'd figured it out from the first trailer) so the impact is not the same for the big reveal, but there are a couple of other surprises and twists that make up for that. The dialogue is not frivolous and some things that you think are come up later in the story. The conversations make sense and are not forced or silly. What works best is that there are honest and frank discussions of how war and peace is conducted in modern times, but it really doesn't ever get preachy and what is being said makes perfect sense for each character involved. I will say that feel quite a few echos from The Dark Knight in the script which may or may not be a bad thing.

Acting (5) - All these actors are good in their roles. Probably the weakest link here is actually Scarlett Johansson. Someone mentioned to me that they are surprised that they don't have Black Widow with a Russian accent. You can easily say that it is all part of her spy craft, but I wonder if she just can't pull one off worth a damn. I've never thought she was an exceptionally good actress. The real winner here is actually Chris Evans. He embodies Steve Rogers so completely, he gives RDJ a real run for his money as the star of this whole enterprise. I feel like if Cap didn't work, "Phase 2", as Marvel calls it, wouldn't work. You've got an awesome pedigree here of the older and newer generation of actors and they work terribly well together.

Tilt (5) - Great movie. I don't really have much else to say than that. Really wild ride. I never looked at my watch and LOADS of stuff happened. Pacing really helped with that.

Total Score -5