The Dark Knight Rises: Revisited

The other day I decided to watch the Dark Knight Rises for the first time since viewing it in the theatre,which was a life changing experience. I was prompted to watch it again by an article I read about the movie and an accompanying video by Screen Junkies called "Honest Trailers: The Dark Knight Rises. The article and video revealed major plot holes and pitfalls I failed to notice while watching the movie for the first time (I was too awestruck to even think about any of the unlikely happenings in the movie). So I plunged back into the Dark Knight Rises and attempted to find even more plot holes and really evaluate the movies every facet.


Wow, Holy Plot-holes Batman. I watched the whole movie with undivided attention and scrutinized every detail and guess what I found, a great movie whose greatness is built upon a foundation of plot holes. Almost every awesome happening and even some scenes of important plot development in the film are accompanied by at least one plot hole. Bane's whole master plan that takes 1 hour of the movie to develop is literally based on a single, gigantic, gaping plot hole akin to the Star Wars Sarlacc pit from Return of the Jedi. It gobbled up the whole first hour of the movie and put me in a state of limbo. The plot hole in question: How the hell does Bane know the location of the secret armory if the only two people in the world who do are Mr. Fox and Bruce Wayne and it is literally non existent to everyone else in the universe? Bane doesn't explain it and Batman never questions him about it,he just accepts it as providence or something, which Batman would never do. Ever. Never Ever. So their goes the first third of the movie.

You are the worlds greatest detective, act like it.

Additionally, Catwoman's motivation throughout the movie is to get this computer program called the clean slate, and near the end, Bruce Wayne somehow inexplicably reappears in Gotham and has the Clean Slate on one measly flash drive. He doesn't explain where he got it from and even asks Catwoman for help to get his batman stuff back by taking him to Lucius Fox, so using his batman equipment was not an option. Did he just carry that thing throughout his captivity? Was it in the bat cave  They could at least address the audience honestly on this. Oh, and then the program is never mentioned again in the whole movie, a program that is arguably the most sophisticated and illegal program ever to exist on earth. He gives it to Catwoman and its only use in the movie is to give some shed a small ray of light on why Catwoman wants the stupid program so badly. She wants it because she wants to start over fresh. Who would have been able to figure that out without the stupid clean slate. Everyone but Christopher Nolan really wanted to treat us all like insufferable fools I guess.

That brings me to my next point. This movie literally coddles you. It doesn't make you think and doesn't want you to. I thought the Dark Knight was very thought provoking and a great super hero movie at the same time, but it seemed like Nolan abandoned that for the last installment of his Batman Trilogy.

And what the hell is wrong with Batman's voice  he literally sounds more like a retarded man child dressed in costume than ever before. Its not even gritty any more, he just sounds stupid, like he can't breath or  has a constant sore throat. Fin.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A journey of a movie, in a good way


My eyes have finally seen my most anticipated movie of the year and though I enjoyed it thoroughly, there were some short pitfalls that made it less memorable or epic as its predecessor.

Just to fill in everyone who was not aware, The Hobbit was filmed in 3D, 48 frames per second, digital format. This radically changed the movie. When the movie first starts in Hobbiton, the 48 fps as an immediately visible effect. Everything looks far more real than in a typical 24 fps movie and it gives the movie a sort of soap-opera-in-high-definition feel. Additionally, it makes the special effects and CGI far easier to pick out. The film is so smooth, that the CGI isn't blurred by the natural constraints of 24 fps film so most of the CGI creatures and action falls into the uncanny valley. However, there are some great benefits to the frame rate boost. First of all, everything looks hyper realistic. The beautiful vistas of New Zealand are rendered in more color and detail than ever before. The amount of detail is so amazing, it almost reaches a saturation point and sometimes you can't process every little bit of it. The 3D was also a plus as it added more realism to the movie but wasn't really necessary.

Now that I got all the juicy tech stuff out of the way, I can dive into the Ya's and Nay's of the movie. The movie was really long, almost too long at some points. The first hour is spent in Hobbiton or filling the viewer in on the lore surrounding the adventure. This really stretches the movie out and makes it feel real slow at the beginning.

Ya! Five minutes of dwarves devouring everything in Biblo's house! Now that's a movie.

After the long and boring exposition in Hobbiton, the real movie begins and its pacing is much better, albeit repetitive. It seems to fall into a rhythm of trekking cross country while simultaneously developing the characters, and then turning into an action packed chase scene. This pattern is continuous throughout the movie and the movie ends just as it began, with all of them together in high hopes of completing their adventure; a plot format that ties the whole thing together into a continuous repetitive circle. In short, the pacing is devoid of surprises.

The plot was much better. Peter Jackson took much care in informing the viewer of the circumstances of Bilbo's expedition --  past and present --, added a little off book antagonism to give the movie some greater urgency, and tied in the Lord of the Rings Saga nicely by presenting The Necromancer (Sauron before he regained his strength in Mordor), throwing in Radagast the Brown, and characters from the Lord of the Rings like Lady Galadriel and Saruman (whom didn't appear in The Hobbit). 

The action in this movie was good, but too far fetched. The Lord of the Rings had its ridiculous moments but this movie really made me suspend disbelief in some action sequences. When the company is fleeing the Goblin King, Fili (or is it Kili) wacks arrows away with his sword and uses a ladder as an effective shield against the flurry of arrows. Additionally, some scenes in which the action should have most definitely resulted in the death of all the characters, they all came out without a hair out of place.

Overall, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a welcome return to Middle Earth, even if it was long winded at some points and the action far to over the top. I give it a 4 out of 5.

The Hobbit; My Most Anticipated Movie of the Year

Its back to Middle Earth and for me, this movie was definitely unexpected; especially a three movie trilogy of one prequel. Who would have thought that Peter Jackson would  return to Middle Earth to film the least famed of the Tolkien stories The Hobbit, and then make it a trilogy. Furthermore, he is filming this series digitally, in 5k resolution, and in 3D. Jackson is simply pulling out all the stops on this one, which is why I want to see the movie so badly.



I had read The Lord of the Rings, and watched the movies, thoroughly enjoying all the time I spent in Tolkien's and Jackson's beautiful Middle Earth, and even though these books and movies reign supreme over the under appreciated prequel that is The Hobbit, I am more enthused about this movie than any of the others. Personally, I fancied The Hobbit over the other stories because I found it more engaging and a little less romanticized. It was more tight and written so the reader wasn't forced to take in too much all at once. I expect the movie to be on an equal level as my favorite Tolkien book and so far, the behind the scenes videos and trailers seem to show the movie living up to my immense expectations.

One great part of the new movie series are the actors. One of my favorite actors, Martin Freeman, who plays Watson in the BBC series Sherlock, taking the role of Bilbo Baggins. In the trailers and other tit bits shown so far, Freeman pulls of Bilbo's homely, curious, and adventurous character perfectly and I honestly couldn't picture anyone else in the role. Additionally, many actors from The Lord of the Rings series are returning to reprise their roles. Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, the powerful wizard and Bilbo's guide and friend. Kate Blanchett plays Lady Galadriel, the elven queen, and Legolas (played by Orlando Bloom) and Frodo (Elijah Wood) return in some way to Middle Earth. This brings up one interesting choice by Peter Jackson, which is to bring characters that appeared in The Lord of the Rings books, but not in The Hobbit, into the film in order to establish a more clear connection between the stories. I am excited to see how Jackson ties in these additional characters and remain optimistic that it won't tarnish the core story in anyway.

Hopefully, Jackson will make The Hobbit at least as magnificent as his Lord of the Rings films, and better yet, surpass those films and really take The Hobbit above and beyond expectations.

Life of Pi

The Life of Pi delivers a emotionally powerful and amazing visual experience.


When my friend suggested that we watch Life of Pi over Brad Pitt's new movie Killing Them Softly, I was reluctant, as I had planned to spend my time at the theater watching people get blown up and viewing a genocide on the race of bad guys. Additionally, I was skeptical of Life of Pi's ability to deliver a fun and meaningful movie experience and the 3D aspect; which I perceived to be a gimmick to draw in the mindless movie zombies that lack refinement. However, I was pleasantly surprised to watch a movie that was dramatic, thought-provoking, and very beautiful.

Life of Pi follows the story of a young man named Piscene Molitor, a.k.a Pi, who is lost at sea after the large cargo freighter he is traveling on is flooded by water and sinks. He was traveling on the ship with his family and various zoo animals that his father owned, and when the ship sinks, his whole family dies and he is stuck on a life boat with a tiger to keep him company. At this point, when I expected the movie to get stale, it only gets better, as Pi attempts at first to avoid the tiger (named Richard Parker) and then to train it; eventually, his efforts make the tiger a true companion for him on the sea. The movie could have fallen into a rut and gotten very boring, very fast; however, due to great pacing and the engaging relationship between Pi and Richard Parker, the movie never sags and kept me engaged until the very end.

Bros for life- well at least while they are on the boat together

In my opinion, this movie's greatest asset are the special effects.The director saw the ocean as a canvas that he could bring to life and use to peer into Pi's inner state or simply make a beatific scene. The ocean in this movie seemed to be alive, ever changing, filled with life and color. Its conditions also reflected Pi's mood. In the beginning, the ocean was always its cliche blue and sharks constantly circled the boat just as Pi was afraid of the unknown and scared to face his fear, Richard Parker. This is the oceans usual state in the movie, but whenever a important plot or character development scene takes place, the ocean changes into a mystical form. In one scene at sunset as Pi and Richard are at a cross roads of their journey, the water is perfectly reflective and orange, and Pi throws a message in a bottle into the sea, his last attempt scene in the movie to call for help. Additionally, the first moment of profound connection between Pi and Richard Parker occurs in a starry night, and the water reflects the stars, making the boat look like it is floating in space; and Pi notices Richard Parker gazing into the sea, and Pi joins him, and they both share a connecting moment that tethers the two together.

I was skeptical of the 3D mostly because the movie was not animated and I couldn't think about any good opportunities that would really do the filming the movie in 3D justice, so I thought it was a pointless gimmick. Man was I wrong. The most astounding scene of the movie is during a nighttime phosphorescent plankton bloom, which makes the water glow when disturbed and attracts a huge mass of glowing jellyfish to congregate all around the boat. As Pi gazes into the water, he makes out a shape approaching from the depths and it slowly begins to take form, and once Pi realizes its a massive blue whale, the majestic creature bursts from the water, glowing as it is covered with the glowing plankton and jelly fish. This scene really showed the ability of the 3D to deliver and defined its purpose in the film of bringing the great special effects to life.

Overall, I grant Life of Pi a 4.5 out of 5, only because the beginning started off slow and it wasn't abundantly clear on the whole message of the story and the importance of some of the scenes.

Great Debate: The Comedy versus The Action Genre

My most frequented genres of film and television are comedy and action/adventure because each has its own taste that I love. It is comparable to the five food groups or Food Pyramid, with artistic value or merit being comparable to all the healthy parts of the pyramid. The Comedy is at the top of the pyramid; a sugary sweet genre that lacks true artistic merit. The Action Movie a more major "food" group for the avid movie goer as it is meatier and occasionally a good action movie does display a great amount of artistic expression. After placing my favorite movie genres in their respective "food" groups, I can evaluate that I have a very unhealthy movie diet which lacks any of the deep profound movie food groups. Despite this introspection, the focus of this post is to decide, once and for all, which movie food group is better, the meaty and macho action genre or the sweet and sour comedy.

I watch all types of comedies, from witty and highbrow to crude and downright nasty. I recently started watching Arrested Development and its appeal lies mostly within the witty and quirky category as subtle jokes are the constant flow which is occasionally punctuated by a raunchy, laugh out loud joke. Some of the most shamelessly sick humor I have ever seen occurred in one of my favorite shows Blue Mountain State. This show ditches any hope of high brow elitist humor by constantly focusing on the vices of life such as sex, drugs, and partying. In every episode, these three vices get the main characters into some hopeless situations which they always wiggle their way out of, usually by doing something unforgivably nasty or depraved. 

     

Their is truly only one type of action movie or show. Sure their are slight variations like action mystery, action thriller, etc., but when you watch an action film, you know what you are getting. EXPLOSIONS, GUN FIGHTS, PUNCHING, MURDERING MORE BAD GUYS THAN THE POPULATION OF BHUTAN! Action movies stick to their bases and never really vary. Even though there are different types of meats, they are all still meat and fulfill the same nutritional needs, just as different types of action movies feed the same essential movie goer need; the need to witness a spectacle of utter obliteration at the hands of one or a few bad ass men that are seemingly invincible. 

So which one is better. Well after carefully evaluating both I realized that they are dead even, but additionally I realized that I don't even need to be writing a post on this topic because Expendables 2 merged the two genres perfectly and made God's Gift to man. Therefore, If the Dear Lord has already granted me a movie that fulfills both of my movie food group favorites, why am I even trying to discern which genre is better. I will never watch a movie of one or the other genre again, I have Expendables 2 and that is all I need. 

What more do you need?

However, I understand that you, my dear reader, may not see it this way. Well luckily for you, I gave you skinny on both genres in this post so you could make a educated choice on which one is better. Sound off in the comments.

Expendables 2: God's Gift to Humanity

Why is The Expendables 2 pretty much one of the greatest movies ever created (a fact that provokes me to believe it was directed by The Eternal One himself)? Well to put it simply, it is the hiatus of the synthesis of the two best movie genres known to man: the action movie, characterized by yoked bad asses shooting guns at other people and annihilating everything in their path, and the comedy, characterized by hilarious jokes that cause people to literally pee from extreme enjoyment and some of the most memorable lines in movie history (for me at least). It may be rational to think that a genre so serious and caught up in its own awesomeness, such as the action genre, could never stoop so low to accept the low standards and self-deprecation of the comedy genre, but Expendables 2 manages to bring these two seemingly incompatible genres together in the most awesome and beautiful way possible.

Just look at the cast Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Chuck Norris, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Liam Hemsworth, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Bruce Willis, and the freaking governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger  How is that not a recipe for the most epic movie ever. Even with this all star class, this movie succeeded for one reason, it didn't give two heaping turds about its image or how classy it was or how serious and dramatic it was. It didn't care, which was why it was so exhilarating and hilarious.

The first movie failed because it took itself too seriously, it tried to be approachable by actually caring about its image and stupid crap like character development, but similar to a shady guy in a van promising candy, people didn't latch on to it, mostly because the script was bad and though the facade was typical deep movie bull crap, the core was ridiculous stupid action. People felt  that The Expendables was lying to them by trying to wear the mask of a good movie, when in reality it was quite bad.

The Expendables 2 did away with all that makeup and revealed itself as the ugly duckling it really is, and furthermore, it relished in its hideousness and went out of its way to make itself the least sophisticated movie of all time. And this, against all odds, made every single soul love and enjoy The Expendables 2. Disregard the bad reviews, these people are just sauerkrauts that are too callous to admit that they loved this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it more than any other movie ever made. Why did the ugly duckling strategy work? Well this movie had great action, self-deprecating humor, and allusions to other famous action movies. The action was literally non stop, and constantly punctuated by some hilarity caused by epic one liners, or the simply over-the-top action scenes; which in all truth, were absolutely ridiculous, and the likes of which have and never shall be scene again. Bad guys were mowed down by the greatest action stars of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s by the thousands. In one scene, Chuck Norris kills about 50 people without so much as glancing at them. 

The lack of characterization and importance placed on the characters also made this movie that much better. The main bad guy, who is introduced by holding Liam Hemsworth's character hostage, is literally named Villan. That is how little this movie cares about your opinion. It names the villain a near phonetically identical name as the word itself. The characters need no introduction, they are the bad asses that everyone grew up with in their youth, and all you need to now is that they have one goal, to gain revenge and kill anyone that is in their way. Yes they have names, but I literally don't remember any of them, to me, they are Stallone and Crews, Li and Willis, Norris and Lundgren, and all that matters is they kick ass and spout one liners like it ain't no ones business. They have a monopoly on ass kicking, and are relentless in spitting out half baked one liners, and I absolutely would not have it any other way.

Thank God for these men.


This movie is the epitome of all things awesome and funny, and everyone on earth has an obligation to watch, salivate, and fall in love with The Expendables 2. No feature film will ever surpass it; well, I digress, Expendables 3 is definitely going to blow its predecessor out of the water.

Elementary: Episode 4 Season 1

Elementary: Sticks to its Elements in this Week’s Episode

This year, a new Sherlock Holmes series premiered on CBS and I was at first skeptical of its quality and potential. I had watched the riveting and often comedic BBC series called Sherlock and I was unsure if Elementary could reach that gold standard. After watching the first episode, I was pleasantly surprised by its twist on the usual Sherlock Holmes formula, yet at the same time, the show was a few points shy of being equal to Sherlock. In Elementary, Sherlock is a recovering drug addict who abused heroine and alcohol and Watson is actually an Asian-female sober companion who is living with Sherlock to ensure that he won’t relapse. I really liked this new interesting dichotomy compared the jokingly “homosexual” relationship of Sherlock and Watson in the BBC show. Although I like the new characters, I dislike how the plot of one episode in Elementary is – at least so far – unlinked to the plot the preceding, a tactic that Sherlock employed to give each episode a sense of progression, overarching plot development, and further characterization. Despite this, the characters in Elementary are proving to be fleshed out and each one fits into little niche, one great example being Sherlock’s arrogant and dismissive behavior, a quality that would be expected from a genius detective.

In this week’s episode, Sherlock is called in to consult for a banking firm who’s COO has been missing for the past day. Sherlock finds the location of the man in no less than two hours and when he arrives on the scene, the man is dead, seemingly from a heroin overdose. Sherlock is immediately suspicious of the “accidental” death, but his mind is more preoccupied with the heroin, as the viewer can derive a small internal struggle going on in his head through his blank stare, which denotes his withdrawn internal state. Luckily, Watson is there to push him in the right direction and he quickly snaps out of it, snaps at her because he doesn’t need her to help him maintain his sobriety, and then he quickly to Gregson, the police captain, explains how the death, was actually a murder. This short scene is a great example of characterization because it shows how Sherlock is still struggling with remaining sober and is arrogant nature, evident by his rude outburst at Watson for helping him.

Mexican Standoff- Sherlock versus Watson

Even though I thought the character development in this episode was well done, especially for Sherlock whom was forced to face his past problems of addiction, it was probably the least captivating by far. I found the mystery in this episode quite tedious and underdeveloped. The plots of the previous episodes, especially last week’s, were great and enthralling, which made this episode’s mediocre plot seem all the worse. Additionally, I thought that the episode’s one attempt at showing how Sherlock’s arrogance and confidence gets him into deep trouble lacked build up and tension, it just happened, and this expedience changed what could have been a thought provoking foray into Sherlock’s character, a simple mistake that ultimately came off as having little consequence. For me, this pitfall was expanded due to the fact that the BBC series would have capitalized on such an opportunity that would allow them to show Sherlock’s turmoil between his arrogance and his situational appraisal skills.

Overall, I grant a measly three stars to this week’s episode and a hope that this episode hasn’t set a precedent for future episodes or foreshadows the series getting stale in the future.

Walking Dead: Season Three Episode Three Review

I really enjoyed this episode, in fact, I have immensely enjoyed all of this seasons episodes, which pretty much defecate upon nearly all of last seasons emotionally boring and action-less episodes. I can say with one hundred percent certainty, that season three of the Walking Dead has been the best season so far. The reason for this; the episodes are dynamic, they hit multiple highs and lows and transition nearly seamlessly from tense emotional or dramatic scenes into gory action sequences

This weeks episode is another great example, however it sacrifices greater quantities of action for a more mysterious and foreboding vibe around the newly found utopia of Woodbury and its leader, The Governor; and at the end of the episode,the audience discovers has some seriously weird collectors items

"Nah guys, this bro definitely isn't a psychopath."

This episode centers around the character Andrea and Michonne instead of the usual crew, which is a nice change of faces and situation. In the beginning of the episode, they investigate go to investigate a helicopter crash site, but once they arrive, The Governor and his goons arrive as well, beginning to methodically pick apart the crash for anything valuable and save the one survivor. Andrea and Michonne are about to leave the scene, when they are discovered by Meryl, a former character of the first season who is now working for The Governor. They are then taken to the utopia of Woodbury, where zombies are pretty much a non-factor due to the walls surrounding the town. Andrea revels in this new safety, but Michonne has trouble adapting, as she feels it is too good to be true and is deprived of the one thing that makes her feel safe, her katana. That's the basic overview of the beginning of the episode and now I am going to get into my true review.

I found this episode very refreshing, in the sense that one may find a glass of their favorite drink more refreshing than a glass of ice cold water. I make this juxtaposition because I want to be clear that I found that I was just as emotionally invested with the previous episodes as I was with this one, the only difference being that I was eager to see what Michonne and Andrea were up to and this episode delivered. 

I liked the feel The Governor, whose mannerisms and outward behavior made them seem kind and sympathetic, but his darker underside was just barely palpable, and I could tell that The Governor and Woodbury were hiding some dark secrets, some of which were revealed in this episode, such as The Governor's true nature, but others were left in the dark.

Additionally, Woodbury proved to be a well constructed environment in regard to its ability to really set the mysterious and foreboding tone of this episode through its ominous vibe. While watching the episodes I wondered, " Are those walls really just to keep the zombies out, or are they also to keep the people in?", and after completing the episode, I decided that both were true.

The acting, pacing, and action in the episode were also spot on so I don't feel the need to go into any detail on those aspects, but the conglomeration of all the great qualities of this episode have made me inclined to give it a 5 out of 5.

Taken 2: Failure to take me away

I really wish somebody took me out of the movie theater before the movie started because I highly regretted sitting through one hour and thirty minutes of melodrama, horrible line readings, and mediocre -- but painfully short -- action sequences.The movie begins in the richy-rich suburbs of L.A. and to my utter surprise it began not with a bang, but with some slow music and melodrama. I thought that I just bought a ticket for a Spanish telenovela it was so cheesy and horribly executed. I don't really blame the actors for this, I think they tried their best do deliver some really bad lines, which were by far some of the most bland and tedious lines that I have ever heard in any movie ever. In addition to the bad lines, the first thirty minutes of this movie put Liam Neeson out of his expected role and into the shoes of a caring daddy who speaks like a robot. He wasn't kicking ass and killing bad guys in an indiscriminate rampage, he was comforting his wife and stalking his daughter. WHAT THE HELL? I didn't come to soap opera night at the theater! I came to see LIAM "BAMF" NEESON beat the living crap out of a bunch or kidnapping, sex slave peddlers.

The good part didn't even begin until a little before the halfway point of the movie, and it still started slowly. Liam Neeson was running away from the bad guys, and this scenario usually constitutes a good chase scene; but yet again, this is the Taken franchise and Liam Neeson, so he should be killing his attackers without remorse, not running from them. The first murder didn't even occur until about 50 minutes into the movie. This is unforgivable. I came to see Liam Neeson kill guys with ridiculous precision and super-human skills from the get go, not more than halfway through the movie. The rampage should have started from the get go and looked like this:

Not like the picture above, where he is relaxing with his daughter and having an awkward conversation with her. By the time the rampage got going, it was underwhelming and occasionally, Neeson's actions seemed the exact opposite of calculated. At one point, he drove a taxi straight through the U.S. embassy in order to avoid the bad guys, breaking down barriers and getting shot at by marines with 50 caliber machine guns. He could have simply stopped the car, showed his passport, and explained the situation; but instead, he risked his daughter's and his life by trying to drive through various military blockades in a crappy taxi. For me, that sequence was excruciating and I simply couldn't suspend my disbelief and disregard it.

After his daughter was safe at the embassy, Neeson yet again goes out for revenge and to save his wife. He tracks the arch-bad-dudes location and kills about four guys without blinking. Finally, he reaches a hexagonal room where a fat dude is waiting for him, but this fat guy isn't the main bad guy, the main bad guy uses this fat guy as his last line of defense; so as Neeson slowly approaches him in the most overly dramatic way possible. 
The boss battle was actually pretty good and I enjoyed it, but was still annoyed about how the director works so hard to emphasize this battle and pretty much shout at the audience "HEY GUYS, BE EXCITED, IT IS A BOSS BATTLE! LIKE MARIO VS BOWSER!", like we don't understand its the final fight before the end. 

Anyway, after some intense grappling Neeson dispatches the guy and confronts the arch-baddy, whom he gives the choice to let his wife go and stop seeking vengeance and in return Neeson will not kill him. WHY? WHY? Your are a hard core bad ass who doesn't take revenge lightly, in the last movie you literally tortured and murdered every single bad guy, and now, you offer this pathetic old man who wants to kill your whole family and you a chance to live. Talk about a two-faced character, this was a complete change of personality for Neeson's character. I understand the moral, but I can't reconcile that with the sudden personality change that Neeson undergoes. I guess all that soap opera crap in the beginning really did make Neeson a forgiving  understanding man. Luckily, the bad guy still tries to kill Liam Neeson, whom responds by swiftly smashing his head into a piece of crowbar protruding from the wall, which would be awesome if the cinematography of this scene was not so horrible. It was nearly impossible to see what Neeson slammed his head into, the crowbar was barely visible in the scene, so if you were not paying complete attention it would have looked like Neeson just lightly pushed his head against the wall and the pathetic old man died. They should have just cut it off at that point, but they had to end one last family man scene in which he eats dinner with his family and his daughter's boyfriend, whom he doesn't scare this time. The End. Thank God

Looper Review

"Ask yourself: who would I sacrifice for what's mine?"


This quote sums up the theme of this weeks latest blockbuster action movie, Looper. It examines selfishness in a world that promotes self-absorbency and excess. In the world of Looper, the main character Joe --  who is played by Joseph Gordon Levitt -- is an assassin who kills people in the future and pockets a hefty paycheck, which he is supposed to blow in his mafia's club on drugs, prostitutes, and other vices. In the beginning of the story, Joe is the epitome of a self-absorbed jerk, who drives a nice sport cars through the slums, nearly running over people in the process, and living the high life with all his looper buddies. However, once his mafia sends back his future self and Joe fails to kill him, all hell breaks loose. Joe's change in character development doesn't occur until after he arrives at a small farm -- at the direction of his future self -- owned by a single mother, with whom he slowly builds a relationship with. While Joe is hiding from his former mafia on the farm, he begins to see the value in other people and he slowly begins to transition into a selfless character, who shows the depth of his devotion to others at the end of the movie.
Besides a deep theme, this movie had a riveting plot with all around good pacing, magnificent special affects, and of course some of the most memorable action sequences I have ever seen.


















The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"



The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"


The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"

The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"
The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"
The plot of Looper was definitely one of the most intriguing and mind boggling I had ever witnessed. It is close to the same level of Inception, which most people classified as a mind(expletive). However, even with a good plot, this movie would have fell flat without good pacing. Luckily, Looper delivered. With constant valleys and peaks, it was hard to predict which turn the movie would take next. A perfect example of this is the scene in which Bruce Willis appears. It starts out showing Joe's typical pre-assassination routine,until he checks his pocket watch and realizes  his "package" is running late. Slightly disturbed, Joe returns to focusing on the drop zone, when suddenly, Bruce Willis appears, knocks out Joe, and flees. In the scene, the slow rhythm in the beginning dramatically shifts into a faced paced Hans Zimmer-esque melody. All of a sudden, your heart races as you realize, "Holy crap, that's Bruce Willis and Joe's future self! Now the movie is really starting!"
Surprisingly, action scenes were not the main portion of this movie. Their was far more introspection on the different characters' parts and character development was substantial. That is not to say that there wasn't a lot of good action, instead the action sequences were usually very short, fast, and visceral, or slower and broader. For example, in one scene, probably the most epic scene of the movie, Bruce Willis single-handedly kills about 50 people while taking out the looper mafia with  the fury of his akimbo P-90's in a ten minute scene. In contrast, their were many short fight scenes or just one shot assassination scenes that were powerful because they were so punctual and gory.
Surprisingly, action scenes were not the main portion of this movie. Their was far more introspection on the different characters' parts and character development was substantial. That is not to say that there wasn't a lot of good action, instead the action sequences were usually very short, fast, and visceral, or slower and broader. For example, in one scene, probably the most epic scene of the movie, Bruce Willis single-handedly kills about 50 people while taking out the looper mafia with  the fury of his akimbo P-90's in a ten minute scene. In contrast, their were many short fight scenes or just one shot assassination scenes that were powerful because they were so punctual and gory.
All in all, Looper was a freaking amazing movie that I give a 9 out of 10.

The special affects were also expertly done. Slow motion was used sparingly, which maximized their effect. And the shifting camera angles and CGI were woven in only when it suited the scene, which prevented a sensory overload for the viewer and the movie from looking fake.

The return of South Park with new episode Sarcastaball

Halfway through its sixteenth season running, South Park opened with a rather mellow mid-season premiere. Of course,  the word "mellow" is relative when talking about South Park, a show with a long history of controversy. Adept at mocking almost every facet of society, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker took it to the NFL and school safety policy in this weeks episode. 
The episode began with Stan's concerned father, Randy Marsh, sarcastically endorsing the schools new policy that banned kick-offs in football games. He then sarcastically proposes the most unmanly and pathetic game possible, which he calls Sarcastaball, as a super safe and fun to watch alternative, in which the children wear bras, tinfoil hats, hug their opponents, and use a balloon instead of a ball. This new sport is immediately endorsed by the listless masses, who couldn't understand sarcasm if it pegged them in the nuts with a football (get it, reference to the longest yard), and it eventually makes its way up to the NFL, where all the football commentators, coaches, players, and hardcore fans enjoy the sport as sarcastically as possible. 



From the get go,it is obvious that the running theme of this episode was sarcasm and the recent NFL debacles. It is typical for most South Park episodes to have a running comedic theme such as this, but they also have some type of shack and awe humor that causes the most controversy and laughs. This week's episode did not disappoint in that department, however the chosen shock joke for this episode was a little too graphic and repulsive to go into. If there was any pitfall in this episode, it was that the sarcasm was so heavy; it reduced the usual bang and pandemonium that most South Park episodes effuse. I found myself getting a bit lost in the sarcasm and losing my interest, but more low brow jokes brought me back. All in all, it wasn't the best South Park episode ever, or in this season, but it was a solid premiere that casually introduced people back into the show.