North: So Ridiculous It Has To Be Seen.

So I saw this movie over the weekend and just had to comment on it. I missed the first 15 minutes, but don’t really think I missed anything important. The premise of the movie is thus: North is a young boy who, after feeling unwanted and unloved by his own parents, has it set up by court order to travel the world in order to find new parents who can appreciate him.

But every place North visits (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, China, Amish country, etc.) is so over-the-top in its stereotyping that it’s ridiculous. Everyone in Texas is a horse-riding, ranch-owning, cowboy hat-wearing sharpshooter who likes big things. Everyone in Hawaii is a mainland-US-hating native. Alaska is more like Antarctica, and all houses are Igloos (I’ve been to Juneau in the summer, and I can say… it’s nothing like that). China is apparently still in the Ming Dynasty, and everyone is something like Buddhist Monks. You get the point. It’s just so ridiculous, but it’s so laughably bizarre, at the same time. And it doesn’t help that Bruce Willis magically appears as a different character in almost every place.

Now, speaking of Bruce Willis, I should discuss the cast. The cast of this movie is just about as insane as the movie itself. Every frame there’s like another big name (either for back then or now): Elijah Wood (North), Jason Alexander (North’s dad), Julia Louis-Dreyfus (North’s mom), Bruce Willis (numerous), Jon Lovitz (lawyer), Alan Arkin (Judge, the best character), Dan Aykroyd (Texan father), Reba McEntire (Texas mother), Keone Young (Hawaiian father… you’d know him if you saw him), Graham Green (Eskimo father), Kathy Bates (Eskimo mother), Abe Vigoda (Eskimo grandfather), Richard Belzer (A ferryman-type guy), Ben Stein (Curator), Robert Castanzo (hitman-type guy), John Ritter (final father)… and the one to put the cherry on top of this insane list… a 9-year-old Scarlett Johansson as John Ritter’s daughter in her first movie. A few of those actors are on the ‘That Guy!’ list, but there’s some other big names in there, as you see. Seriously, when I noticed the little girl was Scarlett in the very last frame you can see her face, I knew this movie had officially hit my list of things to talk about.

The acting was silly, like the rest of the movie, but I have to give a shout-out to two characters in the movie: Alan Arkin’s Judge and the Amish father. Arkin stole the movie, for me. Imagine this: Alan Arkin looking like Harvey Keitel doing a Robert DeNiro impression as he acts like a courtroom Judge. It was hilarious. And then the Amish father, for the brief scene he’s in the movie, has one of the best lines in the movie. It literally had me laughing out loud (mostly due to the delivery): “Greetings, North, I am thy new father and this good woman who art my wife, is thy new mother. And these are thy new brothers who art named Ezikeo, and these are thy new brothers who art named Art.”

To top the bizarreness of this movie off, there’s even a random song-and-dance number via Reba and Dan Aykroyd in Texas. There’s some hilariously random dialogue in this movie, as I just showed, but that doesn’t even scratch the surface. This movie can’t really be explained in its ridiculousness. It’s just something you have to witness on your own. If I tried to explain it or list other ridiculous things, I’d be giving a frame-by-frame of the whole movie. Let me put it this way: back in 1994, when the movie was released, Roger Ebert gave what is supposedly a famous review: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."

So if it can bring about such a reaction from Mr. Ebert, it just has to be seen. If you like movies that are so-bad-they’re-good, you definitely need to check this one out. You’ll have a great time, I’m sure. Oh, and did I mention it’s directed by Mr. Rob Reiner? You know, of The Princess Bride and Spinal Tap fame? Yeah, I couldn’t believe it, either.

(P.S. Yeah... I can't rate this movie. I wouldn't know what to give it).

Short Review: Training Day.

So I finally saw this movie. Granted, it was an edited version, but I still got the effect.

----------

Premise: Narcotics officer Alonzo takes a rookie, Jake, out on the job for a day of drugs, violence, and the inner-workings of crooked cops.

Starring: Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke.

My Reaction: Holy crap.


Royale With Cheese

THE DARK KNIGHT.

Short answer: Yes, the movie lived up to its hype. Now that Falcone is no longer running the mob, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are trying to bring down the mob and all crime in general from Gotham. Meanwhile, the now head of Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), is working with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to help bring down a corrupt CEO, Lau (Chin Han), who is working to keep mob money safe in the banks. Similarly, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is out to let the people of Gotham know that Batman is still out there somewhere, keeping the peace. However, a new guy in town who calls himself The Joker (Heath Ledger) begins to steal all this mob money and wreck havoc in Gotham. But that’s only the beginning of his plans. What The Joker really wants is to cause massive chaos by bringing together all criminals and luring Batman into the public eye. And it’s all very much taking its mental tolls on Bruce, who must continually seek advice from his butler, Alfred (Michael Caine).

Let’s just get it out of the way, first: Heath Ledger. Wow… just… wow. The trailers don’t even begin to scratch the surface of this performance. All of the best scenes in the movie were the ones that The Joker was in. Every time The Joker wasn’t on screen, I (im)patiently awaited for the next time he would be. It’s unlike anything Heath had ever done before (and, unfortunately, will ever do again), but it was one hell of a role to end with. Before I saw the movie, I kept wondering if or how they were going to explain The Joker’s origins this time around… and I’m actually really glad they did what they did (not to give anything away). And that interrogation scene was just… wow. Really.

As for other acting performance, Aaron Eckhart did an amazing job. I really felt for Harvey Dent (and believed in him), and by the time you-know-what rolls around, I just felt horrible for the man. It’s rare these days for a character whose fate ends up as such garners so much sympathy from the audience. And while I can definitely see Ledger getting an Oscar nom, I’d also like to see Mr. Eckhart get one, as well. Oh, and not to mention that his ‘look’ was totally disturbing.

All other acting was about where it should have been. There was a lot more Batman than Bruce Wayne this time around, which made the 2.5 hour movie go quickly, unlike the previous installment (which has a tendency to drag at times, in my opinion). But this is also one of my negative (yes, I said it) comments about the movie. The beginning of the movie made me feel as if I had missed something. For the first 30 or so minutes, it just felt as if things were going by too quickly, scene after scene, some of which was confusing at first (like the ‘copycats’. Oh, and how they brought back in the Scarecrow was kinda lame). But all of this is quickly overshadowed as soon as The Joker starts to shine (he had me with the disappearing pencil).

The cinematography was great, too. The first movie was more dark and gritty, and this one had a lot more daylight. However, while there was more sunshine, it made up for it with darker characters/villains, as well as some great camera shots that weren’t exactly there in Begins. There were just some beautiful shots that caught my eye in the movie, such as the rotating camera around the characters in a couple scenes, or the movement/focus of the camera on an upside-down character. Some good stuff.

While the first movie had its theme of fear, this movie had its theme of chaos and order, and there was plenty of both. And not only was it evident in the story, but with the camera movement and the music. Everything played its rightful role in the movie, and the movie deserves every praise it gets. Heath Ledger deserves all the praise he gets. And I honestly didn’t watch the movie and try to make parallels between Ledger and The Joker to find how disturbing the role became. Instead, I sat and enjoyed the movie. I didn’t have time to think about those kinds of comparisons. From the awesome opening bank heist to the ending monologue, the movie had me hooked, every minute of it (even when the stupid projector cut off for about 5 minutes during the last five freakin minutes of the movie). It brought out so many different emotions: it was sad, dramatic, action-packed, hilarious, slightly romantic, and disturbing. And I plan on seeing it again. This is one of the best superhero movies ever made, and it’s one of the best movies, if not the best movie, of the year.

Royale With Cheese

2 In 1: Stark Raving Mad and Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round.

For this 2 In 1, I'm focusing on heist movies (which I've done before). But for this one, it's heist movies in which the heist relies upon an occurrence not entirely up to or controlled by the robbers. For the first movie, Stark Raving Mad, the robbers rely on the loudness of a rave. For the second movie, Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round, the robbers rely on the arrival of a Russian Premier at the airport. So here we are.

---------------------

Stark Raving Mad.

This is one mind-freak of a movie. After his brother dies, Ben (Seann William Scott) is forced to pay off his debts to Gregory (Lou Diamond Phillips). He gets together a crew, including his best friend Rikki (Timm Sharp); a safe cracker, Jeffrey (Patrick Breen); an explosives expert, Jake (John Crye); and computer hacker/systems expert, Betty Shin (Suzy Nakamura). What they need to do is rob a bank that is right next door to a rave club. Unfortunately, the bank has three levels of security. Betty can get through the first two, but the third is a sound detector. Luckily for them, that third system can be nullified if there’s a certain degree of sound. So now they have to keep the rave as loud as possible while they attempt to break into the vault next door. But anything and everything continues going wrong, including a prying FBI agent, Roy (Dave Foley).

This movie is a mixed bag for me, and has been ever since I first saw it a few years back. I think it’s the tone of the movie that is the biggest issue. It seems as if the movie can’t decide whether it wants to be a dark comedy or some kind of quite-literal techno thriller. But one thing is for sure: this movie was made for people to watch while they’re stoned. From the constant techno music, the flashing lights, and any other kind of trippy addition to the movie (such as characters often breaking scene to turn to the camera and give a brief narrative metaphor… or maybe the transvestites… or even a scene in which a boa constrictor is beaten with a humongous rubber dildo). Though I did like the breaking of the fourth wall for the metaphoric narratives. Usually it was Seann William Scott, but there is a scene (in which the movie’s namesake derives) in which another character does it. But they often go off about something seen on the Discovery Channel or PBS, and it somehow connects with their current situation in a symbolic sense.

The acting was average at best, with two exceptions. This movie isn’t your typical Seann William Scott movie. In fact, his character is quite serious most of the time, and he pulls it off very well. He should do more serious roles. But the real standout performance of the movie, I think, was Timm Sharp as Rikki. It was a great character, the most relatable in the situation. Otherwise, as I said, the acting was anywhere between relatively decent (Dave Foley) to just pretty bad (Lou Diamond Phillips).

The visual style is chaotic, much like a rave. The editing style is very quick-cut and purposefully choppy, adding a sense of disorder and mayhem to every scene. However, there are some other shots that are actually quite brilliant to look at: the diamond-in-the-rough scenes, if you will. It’s just that, every now and then, a brilliant camera shot would show itself, making you wonder why the rest of the movie wasn’t equally as stylish.

I’m not sure how else to really explain this movie. It’s one of those that you really must see to understand. And the heist really is the epitome of Murphy’s Law. You’re constantly wondering just how it can get any worse for them, and it usually finds a way. But the movie as a whole still has an awkward feel to me, and I’ve never been able to put my finger on exactly what it is about it that bugs me. It’s still a pretty good heist flick, and unique at that, but it’s not the greatest I’ve seen. If anything, I’d just recommend it for Seann William Scott in a different kind of role. Though if you’re a big fan of heist films, you can check it out for that, too.

I Am McLovin!

Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round.

A heist film with a fun title, but that’s about all it’s worth. Eli Kotch (James Coburn) is a con man on probation setting up the robbery of a Los Angeles airport bank on the same day that the Russian premier is arriving, causing boosted security, picketing, and chaos. But before he can even attempt it, he must first raise enough money in order to get the blueprints of the bank, so he cons his way into a bunch of ladies’ hearts, only to make copies of their keys and steal their things. Though he becomes a bit more connected to one of the women, Inger (Camilla Sparv), and ends up marrying her. But once he has the blueprints, he and his small group of co-robbers begin their master plan on pulling off the highly improbable.

I usually don’t watch too many older movies (this was made back in 1966), but the title caught my eye first, and when I read the description, I thought I’d check it out, as I’m a fan of heist films. Unfortunately, it only seemed to prove my thoughts on why I don’t watch too many older films. It was only 104 minutes, but it felt like 3 hours. It felt unnecessarily long, disjointed, sometimes confusing, and boring. In fact, the entire conning women in order to steal their things stuff would, today, be just written off as a montage, as it isn’t the point of the film. Instead, each woman gets at least 5-10 minutes of the film (and some of them are more annoying than others, especially the first one). All together, the conning stuff took up at least 30+ minutes of the movie at the least, and most of it was very dry.

The one fun thing about it was seeing the different personas that James Coburn pulled off. He was almost a master of accents in this movie, and it was always fun watching him pulling a fast one over on people. He was the best thing about the movie. Camilla Sparv was alright in her acting, but nothing especially noteworthy. Everybody else was relatively forgettable.

There were some great cinematic shots, though, especially toward the beginning. The movie starts off focusing on a group of shadows on the wall while a prisoner gives a monologue during a group therapy session. Later, when Inger is introduced, it begins with a beautiful shot of snow on tree branches, then pans down to show snow-covered everything.

When the big heist finally came, there was some suspense. I watched nervously, wondering if they were all going to get away with it and get to safety. It wasn’t the most amazing heist of all time (nothing like Inside Man or the Ocean’s films), but it was alright. But the real kicker is the twist ending in the last few seconds of the movie. It confused me at first, mostly because of the way the scene was acted, but then I realized what had happened. It was a fun and ironic twist.

Otherwise, it was just alright. It’s not up there on my favorite heist films of all time, and I probably wouldn’t watch it again (actually, I might if just to catch a glimpse of a young Harrison Ford, as this was his first movie, and he has a brief appearance as a messenger of some sort, though I missed it when I watched it… mostly because I didn’t know to look for it). But if you’re a fan of heist films, conman films, or James Coburn films, you should give it a shot. Otherwise, I wouldn’t really bother.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

(P.S. And no, the title doesn’t really make much sense, except that it seems to be the title of an essay or poem Eli wrote, but the movie never goes into it. You just see it on the front of a page as it’s being read silently.)

LKMYNTS: [REC].

So when I heard of a new movie coming out called Quarantine, I watched the trailer, was highly intrigued, and decided to look into it further. When I did, I found out it’s a remake of a Spanish film that was made only last year called [REC] (short for Record or Recording, in this instance), and all reviews I read stated how terrifying it was. I was more intrigued. And then I saw it was a zombie movie. I tracked it down as quickly as possible… which was very difficult, as it isn’t available for Region 1 DVD. Fortunately, albeit not in the most ethical approach, I found a copy uploaded on YouTube of all places. I’ll just leave it at that.

[REC] is about a young television reporter, Angela (Manuela Velasco), and her cameraman Pablo (never fully shown, but voiced by Pep Sais), who are filming a night in the life of the local fire station. She teams up with two of the firemen, Alex (David Vert) and Manu (Ferran Terraza), and discovers how firehouse life is actually quite boring on average. But when they get a middle-of-the-night call to an apartment complex about an elderly woman giving blood-curdling screams, Angela, Pablo, and their firemen acquaintances make their way to the building. However, upon reaching the place, they discover something else much darker than they were expecting is happening. The elderly woman bites a policeman and one of the firemen, and the entire complex suddenly find themselves in the middle of a government quarantine with no explanation as to what is going on or why. But all they know is that there are two dying men who need to get to a hospital and a very sick little girl who apparently has tonsillitis. And everything slowly becomes more and more chaotic from there.

I have to say, this movie was intense. It started off kind of slow, but once they reached the apartment complex, the pace picked up considerably before dropping off for a little bit, and then hitting hard again non-stop to the end. My adrenaline was constantly pumping, my heart going fast, and I even jumped a few times. However, one of the movie’s major downfalls is that it focuses primarily on the intensity and not the characters. The only characters I really had any kind of feeling for were Angela and Pablo. There are a few introductions to characters during the middle slow part of the movie, but not enough to really get a good feel for them. You know they’re just there to raise the body count. The movie would have been much better had they extended the incredibly short length of the movie (it clocks in, without credits, at less than 80 minutes) in order to focus more on character development.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, this movie is shot in a similar fashion to The Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, and Diary of the Dead (except it was out before the latter two). But as I said, it didn’t have the same character focus that, say, Cloverfield had. I didn’t care about Pablo in the same fashion that I cared about Hud. But enough about the characters.

The visuals of the movie are really good. There are some cool shots and angles, and quite a few less-is-more approach shots, in which you only see quick glimpses before the camera pans away, or you only hear noises. There are some great uses of the camera, as well, such as the night vision and the camera light (much like in the subway scene of Cloverfield). Though there was a rewind/fast-forward sequence that didn’t make sense, because as far as I’m aware (though I could be wrong), you can't record yourself rewinding and fast-forwarding.

As for the zombies, they look really creepy from what you see of them (like I said, quick glimpses). Though they’re almost more like The Infected from the 28 _____ Later films, except I would moreso argue that these are actually zombies, unlike the ones in those films. The origin of the zombies is somewhat attempted to be explained, but isn’t fully done so, which I think is nice. Movies that try to explain their monsters sometimes end up hokier than they would have been otherwise. Instead, it leaves it more up to speculation.

The acting is done really well, mostly from the lead actress, Manuela Velasco. I really didn’t notice many (if any) parts that really brought me out of the movie due to poor acting. The ending somewhat confused me, though I think I understood it for the most part. And it’s also a rather abrupt ending, much like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. I’m not too sure what else to say. From the Quarantine trailer, it looks almost identical to [REC], except in English. Even down to the position of the camera and the reaction of the character to certain things. Hopefully, though, this could be one of those rare instances where the remake actually builds on and makes better the original version. If the American version is longer than 80 minutes, I’ll start getting really excited. But until then, I’ll just anticipate both that version, and for whenever [REC] comes to DVD in the US.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I also just found out that my main man Doug Jones is gonna have a cameo appearance in Quarantine, so I'm there even more).

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY.

So, the first one was decent and entertaining. This one, on the other hand, was that and more. Hellboy II starts off with a young Hellboy being read a fairy tale by his ‘father’, Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt), about the Golden Army and its origins. Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) is having some issues with his new relationship with Liz (Selma Blair). But when they, along with fellow friend and teammate Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), get called in to look at a crime scene with no survivors, they soon begin to realize something dangerous is afoot. Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) is attempting to reassemble all the pieces of a magical crown in order to bring back and take control over The Golden Army, though not if his twin sister, Princess Nuala (Anna Walton), has anything to say about it. Though after a little mishap that reveals Hellboy to the public eye, the director of the paranormal agency, Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), brings in Johann Kraus (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) to attempt to keep Hellboy in line.

As I said, the first movie was decent and entertaining, but this one takes it to another level. It’s not as dark as the first one, though. In fact, it’s a lot lighter with more fantasy and fairy tale aspects instead of the nitty-gritty demons, Nazis, and evil Russians of the first. In fact, there’s even a scene in a Troll Market that is somewhat reminiscent of mixing Harry Potter’s Diagon Alley with the Star Wars cantina. And the beginning with Abe and Manning walking through the department reminded me of something out of Men In Black.

The visuals are amazing, as per usual with Del Toro. There is some CGI, but there are far more puppets and costumes than computer graphics (at least from what I noticed), which is nice, because it’s not an overwhelming sensation of fakeness. There were even some really creepy parts, such as the Angel of Death sequence, which I loved. And one of the issues I had with the first movie was that it felt like I was cheated out of the battle scenes, especially the final battle. This time, I didn’t really feel like that (okay, maybe once). But the final battle was long, entertaining, and quite acceptable. Oh, and we finally got to see some cool moves from Abe at one point in the movie, though it’s very brief. Still, it was cool, nonetheless.

The humor from the first movie is still here, as well. In fact, there might be even more. The movie had me laughing out loud quite a few times, specifically the Hellboy/Kraus ‘fight’ and the Hellboy/Abe ‘moment’ (I don’t want to give it away, but you’ll know what I’m talking about).

The acting was a little stiff at times, but not too often. I was glad to hear Doug Jones’ voice for Abe. The villain of the movie, Prince Nuada, actually had some depth to him. He wasn’t just your typical revenge-seeking baddy. In fact, I could compare him (and a lot of the movie’s themes) to that of Magneto from X-Men. There were quite a few parallels, actually, to the themes of X-Men and the themes of this movie. And yes, when I said Seth MacFarlane, I did mean that Seth MacFarlane. But you really can’t tell (at least, I couldn’t).

Overall, I really enjoyed it. I found it much better than the first one, and I wasn’t left with a feeling that something was missing. Selma Blair still could have been given a bit more to do action-wise, though. She got some cool special effects with the fire, but that was about it. So she was nice to look at in more than one way. But yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

KUNG FU PANDA.

So I finally got around to seeing Kung Fu Panda, and it really was better than I thought it was gonna be. Po (Jack Black) is a panda that sells noodles at his father’s shop. He idolizes the five greatest kung fu warriors of the time: Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross), who are all apprentices of Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman). But when Oogway (Daniel Duk Kim) prophesizes the return of the evil Tai Lung (Ian McShane), he and Shifu realize it is time to announce the identity of the Dragon Warrior. In what seems to be an accident (though there are no accidents), Po is chosen as the Dragon Warrior, despite his lack of skill and overweight body. Much to the chagrin of Shifu and his five disciples, Po must now train to become the Dragon Warrior of legend and defeat Tai Lung.

First I want to talk about the voice acting. The only name I knew coming into this was Jack Black. Watching the movie, I immediately noticed David Cross’ voice, and recognized the voices of Jackie Chan, Dustin Hoffman, and Ian McShane, though I couldn’t place who they were. Actually, I thought the entire time that Ian McShane was actually Eddie Izzard, because they sounded awfully alike here. It was Shifu/Dustin Hoffman’s voice that drove me crazy the entire time, as I couldn’t place it. But when the credits began rolling and I saw all these big names, including Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, and Lucy Liu, I was incredibly surprised. They all did a nice job.

The animation style was really well done, and I loved the little anime sequence at the beginning before it transferred over to computer animation. The action sequences were a lot of fun, even for a children’s animated movie. There were a lot of fun fight scenes, most of them happening back-to-back starting with the dumpling fight with Po and Shifu. And the final fight wasn’t too short or anticlimactic at all, as sometimes happens in martial arts movies. I thought it was just right.

The movie was also pretty funny and had me laughing quite a bit. Even by the time the ‘ska-doosh’ came around, I had a big smile on my face just because of the context of the scene. What I particularly liked was that the jokes weren't childish fart jokes, and the movie didn’t attempt to put in adult innuendo humor like Shrek to appease the adults. The jokes worked all around the board, and the movie didn’t even have to rely on slapstick non-stop, either. I was laughing from the opening anime scene with just Jack Black’s narration.

There’s not much more to say. It was thoroughly enjoyable, and I wouldn’t mind watching it again. It didn’t have to throw in a romantic subplot, and it didn’t have to have any crazy twist ending like most movies these days, and that was really a breath of fresh air. Just something simple and fun. It was a relatively linear plot, and mostly predictable, but the way it was done worked. I liked it. Awesomeness.

Royale With Cheese

HANCOCK.

You know when you’re watching a movie and you zone out, but you’re knocked back into the movie every now and then… and when you are, you feel as if you missed something important, or a good, solid scene in the movie? With Hancock, the entire first half of the movie is like that, but without needing to zone out. Hancock (Will Smith) is an alcoholic superhero with amnesia, and every time he tries to do something for the good of society, he ends up screwing up and making the situations even worse. But after Hancock saves the life of a failing public relations professional, Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman), Ray decides to try and turn Hancock’s public persona around, even if it’s against the wishes of Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron).

That’s about as best as I can describe the plot, even though the entire latter half of the movie has nothing to do with that. In fact, the second half of the movie is more of the consequences of what occurred in the first half… sort of. As I alluded to at the beginning of the review, I enjoyed the second half of the movie much more than the first half. The first half just lacked substance, meat, or heart, if you will. It just zipped through the plot like the movie version of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire shot through the first 200 pages of the book in 15 minutes. That’s the best way I can describe it.

But I can’t say, specifically, what I liked about the movie, because that gets into spoiler territory. So all I can really say is my favorite part of the movie all occurred in the second half (though it was alluded to a few times in the first half) and dealt with the superhero lore. I thought that was really creative/imaginative, and I really wished they had dealt more time of the movie on that, as well as the connection between two specific characters. Hopefully if the movie does well enough to garner a sequel, the sequel will do it there.

However, on a similar subject, the movie set itself up for the perfect villain, but then decided not to go that route. Instead, we get really surface-level, shallow villains with no real substance or… anything. They’re just boring and non-special in every way.

The last real thing to complain about would be whoever the heck controlled the camera (or the director, if it was all his idea, which it most likely was). I’m rarely ever conscious of camera choices, but I could never get comfortable in the movie because of it. It liked to get right up in every character’s face in a tight close up (usually used to give everybody a feel of claustrophobia), even if everybody was in a wide-open space. And there was an incredible preference for the zoom button and shaky-cam; as in, the camera would be shaking about like a Bourne movie, and then the cameraman would hit the zoom button so to, very noticeably, shoot in even more on an actor’s face. I noticed it moreso in the first half of the movie than the second half, though. However, I loved the editing work for the climax of the movie, juxtaposing what was going on between Hancock and a certain other character. I thought that was brilliant.

Now on to some good stuff. As for the acting, it was done nicely all around the board. I can’t say much more about it, really. The villains could have been better, as I stated, but I think that was more of a scripting issue than an acting issue (…at least for the most part). The visual effects were stunning, specifically in the second half of the movie with stormy weather fight and the climax battle. The movie was relatively funny, as I did laugh quite a few times. Though I did come off rather negatively in this review, I did enjoy it quite a bit. It was entertaining enough, though it could have been so much better with the potential it had. And they should have concentrated more on the superhero lore. In other words, I think the movie could have been helped by a longer time frame; perhaps another 30 minutes or more. Otherwise, it was pretty good.

I Am McLovin!