Cannibal! The Musical

No Man, That Blood's Totally Not Fake.

Usually when making a film, song, play, anything meant for entertainment, the purpose to make it good. Sometimes, something is made intentionally bad, this is because something that is bad can end up having a different kind of entertainment. Plus, if someone legitimately does not like it, they can't truly complain, it was made with the intention of being bad. This style only works for comedy, of course, because bad effects, dialogue, and sets can make people either laugh or make them mad. It's not surprising to know that Trey Parker was writer and director of this film, Cannibal! The Musical. For those not in the know, Parker is one of the creator's of the long-lived South Park. The poster admits "From the creators of South Park", but I do not know who did what except for Parker.

Parker also plays the main character, Alfred Packer. History buffs may recognize the name, as Alfred Packer was a real-life person, a prospector accused of murder and cannibalism. The film is only loosely based on the history, and since I know very little about Packer, I can not say for sure if anything in the film is close to the truth. But it doesn't really matter, because that's against the point of the film anyway. Is Parker good at this role? Not really, he's very quiet and soft spoken, barely speaking. But with the rule that this movie is trying to be comically bad, it works very well.

The movie starts off with Packer being in trail for cannibalism, but we eventually get to find out what really happened when Packer confesses his story to a reporter by bringing up his horse, whom he treats like a girlfriend, but without being gross. His story starts off with the first song of the film. This is what truly shines through in the film. The songs are very catchy, and feel a bit like a middle school musical. No matter who bad all of the acting is, the sets are just so laughable and the singing is so catchy, you can't help but enjoy yourself. But instead of lying to the little kids that it was perfect, you can admit you liked the show because it was bad. The blood is supposed to look fake, the teepees the Natives (Played by Japanese, who do not hide the fact) are suppose to look like they were made out of garbage bags, and we're supposed to tap our feet to the cheesy and catchy tunes throughout.

The movie scores a 3 out of 5 from me. Maybe it's because as a film buff and a theatrical type, I can enjoy the poking fun at cheap sets and acting a little more than others. It helps that I love jokes about darker material such as cannibalism and murder. Still, those are still very good reasons to watch the film, regardless. Especially since you can watch the film for free online, such put the movie title into any search engine and you'll find the site soon enough, where you can download the soundtrack for free as well.

The Other Guys

It's A Comedy, And That's All

I will start off this review by admitting I am not a fan of Will Ferrell. I find his typical act to be annoying, loudmouthed, and unwatchable. It doesn't help he generally always plays the exact same character, no matter what movie he is in. His role this time is much more subdued, and far more likable. Still, I found him trying to slip into his usual act, but thankfully he did stop himself, or at least was told to stop himself by the director.

While I did find Ferrell to actually be a little fun for a chance, he was not the strongest of the two "Other Guys", that title belongs to Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg does something like Ferrell usually would do, plays someone who is loud, a little obnoxious, but Wahlberg actually knows how to pull it off and make himself both likable and understandable.

Now that our leads have been taking care of, it is time to say what I think about the actual film. As a comedy, the film main goal is to make the audience laugh, and a bigger goal is to keep the audience laughing. Did the film make me laugh? Yes. Did the film keep me laughing? Not really. As a comedy, the film is a perfect example of "okay". It's not mediocre, but it's not that good. The timing for some of the joke's is spot on, and sometimes it's a bit off. That being said, some of the jokes are quite good and thought out, while some of them fall completely flat and feel forced, most of those jokes being about the needless product placement and shout-outs to said products.

Plus, while the two "other guys" do work well as a team, they are nowhere near as good as the starting characters played by Samuel L Jackson and Dwayne Johnson. The two of them kept me in stitches, and were forced out of the movie in what felt like a cheap shot, making it a cheap joke, but at least one that furthers the plot. I would like to see a short film about these two, and considering how much attention this movie will probably get due to the big name stars, I'm going to bet on that wish.

To give the movie an accurate score, I'd have to give it a 3 out of 5. However, this is a low 3. A movie that while it is enjoyable, still feels like more work should have been put into just for it to be slightly above average. However, for people who do not like Will Ferrell's usual antics, I give the movie a recommendation. And I think that is one of the best compliments I can give it.

The Terminator

Run, Sarah, Run

Director and writer James Cameron has become quite well-known in the past twenty or thirty years. From the action-packed Aliens (My favorite of his), the heart-melting Titanic, and the terrifying science fiction thriller known simply as The Terminator. The film is fondly remembered, being the movie that made people familiar with Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with Conan the Barbarian (1982). Yes, believe it or not, there was a time no one had any clue who Schwarzenegger was, until he appeared on-screen as an unstoppable metal-man who still haunts the dreams of many.

Our main character is Sarah Conner (Linda Hamilton). Sarah is a regular everyday waitress, there's nothing special about her, and dates continue to stand her up while her roommate gets to spend many a night with her piggish but still caring boyfriend. But Sarah as it turns out will be a mother in the near future, to a boy named John, who leads a revolution against the evil SkyNet industries, who have taken over the world and murdered the populace. SkyNet decides to erase John from history by killing Sarah in the past, sending a ruthless machine with the outer appearance of a man, the Terminator.

But the revolution overhears this plan, and they send back in time the hero of the movie, Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Kyle is a dependable man, the kind of guy who wish would be in other thriller or slasher movies, as he can out think and even out fight the big metal brute, a hard task to even think about. Kyle is devoted to the cause, and even more so to his leader John. Kyle does his best to not only protect Sarah, but calm her and assure her about what is going on. He's a great hero for the film, and he's written in a way that he doesn't really overshadow Sarah, who holds her ground around what you'd expect in a thriller.

And kudos to this being a time travel film that prevents any paradoxes. The portal is one way only, anyone who goes back in time can not come back to their time. This would make a paradox a lot harder to create, and would probably just reroute itself anyway, considering said person isn't truly in their original timeline anymore anyway. It sounds confusing the way I write it, but it's never even mentioned in the movie, because it's never a problem, hence my explanation.

My only problem with this film is a bit of a spoiler. Let's just say their is a scene near the end of the film that drags on a little longer than necessary. The scene is written well enough so I do not question why it is happening, I believe every moment of it and understand why the characters are doing what they are considering how the movie is being played out. But it's still longer than needed, and took me out of focus for a brief while.

As I said, I don't personally see it as Cameron's best work. Many however, due, and I can't blame them for that. The film gets a solid 4 out of 5 from me. If a giant robotic man is hunting you in your dreams, than do your best to dream up a Kyle Reese to save you.

Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Sometimes All You Need is a Little Stuff and Fluff

Having a love for Winnie the Pooh seems to be a universal thing. Especially for someone like me, who grew up with dear ol' Pooh Bear. Despite being loved like he is, Pooh hadn't been in theatres for a total of twelve years until this latest film. Once I heard about the movie, it instantly became the movie I had to see this summer, no matter what, above all others. And for my patience, I was rewarded with one of the best Winnie the Pooh films ever made.

Since it has been so long since Pooh Bear and friends have been in theatres, it really isn't surprising to find out that a lot of the voice actors are different than last time. Winnie and Tiger are still voiced by Jim Cummings, doing his impression of their original voice actors Sterling Holloway and Paul Winchell respectively. But the rest of our old friends have new voices. Some make since, like Piglet now being voiced by Travis Oates, as John Fiedler passed away in 2005. Even though I prefer Fiedler as Piglet due to memory, Oates as Piglet is one of the best replacement voices in the film. Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Wyatt Dean Hall play Kangra and Roo quite well, and Bud Luckey is a good Eeyore. However, Craig Ferguson as Owl takes a little to get used to, so overall it's not bad, but it's not great either. And that leaves Rabbit, being voiced by Tom Kenny. I'll be honest, I do like Tom Kenny, but this is one of his voices that just sounds like a hundred of the other characters he's played. He just didn't sound like Rabbit, nor did it feel like he should have been Rabbit.

Besides our fuzzy little stuffed friends, we have Christopher Robin, voiced by Jack Boulter. Boulter makes Christopher sound a bit more English than past versions, but I didn't mind it. And as our Narrator, we have John Cleese. Cleese doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's him, and it just adds a little something to the film because of that. He sounds super friendly, he's funny, and we can tell who he is, it really does add to the storybook way the film goes. It makes him feel like an uncle or father, he gives us a warm feeling while he tells us the story and it makes us both very happy.

I give the film a 3.5 out of 5. It's a great film for all ages, has great animation, and it even comes with a beautiful short film at the beginning, since the actual film is only one hour and three minutes. Whether you are seven or seventy, Winnie the Pooh will warm your heart and make you feel great.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

How To Put A Good End To A Series

This was a moment many people my age had been either waiting for, or dreading. This was the last installment to the Harry Potter film series, based off the last book of the book series. Harry Potter is a name that will be remembered about as fondly as Frodo Baggins, Captain Ahab, or Quasimodo, although I must admit it is more of a generation thing. Even still, the movie itself proves to be a great way to end the series, giving it's audience just about everything they ask for.

Since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 featured all of the aimless trekking through the woods, the second part focuses completely on the action. The movie refuses to really pull any punches, starting from about fifteen minutes in with a shocking scene of black-comedy, where a brain dead goblin is burned alive by a dragon. He is only the first one to die in this movie, and the death toll is far from small. Werewolves are disintegrated by a magic force field, death eaters either burn alive or fall to their deaths due to an exploding bridge, and let's just say a CGI snake gives us a scene that just barely evades an R rating.

But the film is more than just an action movie, giving us scenes of raw emotion. The woman I was sitting next to (a good friend of mine) was sobbing at one point, and just to prove I'm not heartless, the same scene made me cry too. I'd also be lying if I forget to mention the film has legitimately scary moments as well. Of course one of those moments was from a bit of symbolism near the end I personally feel could have been toned down a little. Of course, being mostly an action movie, the movie does wrap itself up in a way so you don't feel like you've been sitting down for over two hours, and for this type of movie, that is a very good thing.

Sure, as a big Potter fan, my judgement may not be as fair as someone who is not. But, as a Potter fan, I still recommend the book series more. The movie, like the first part, gets a solid 3 out of 5. It's a bit better than the first part, which is also a good movie, and it gives an end to the series with no major complains on my part.

Tron Legacy

All Logic Will Be Derezzed.

When I first heard of this film, I had a gut feeling it would be one of the most dissapointing films made in 2010. I was right. The first Tron has become a cult classic for very good reasons. The effects (still) look impressive, the story is as interesting as the characters, and it also features one of the most iconic villains seen on screen, even for cult classic standards. The sequel has impressive special effects, and that is all. Sure, there are a few scenes that are fun, but it doesn't make up for the below average plot and nonsense logic.

The villain I mentioned above is named the MCP, The Master Control Program. MCP was sinister, threatening, and had a catchphrase ("End of line") that is commonly qouted to this day. The villain in this film, named Clu, may be a much bigger monster, but is forgettable. Even though he is played by Jeff Bridges, who in 2010 also wonderfully played Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. The only reason people will remember the villain's name is that Clu is also the name of the first character in the first movie who was killed by the MCP. Clu is a genocidal racist with plans to take over the world. It's a generic villain motive, and it isn't looked into very well or really at all, making him a sterotypical villain that should have had some character.

Our hero is Sam Flynn, the son of Jeff Bridges other character Kevin Flynn. Sam is a "rebel" who dropped out of college for no reason, refuses to take control of his compant and instead just toys with the sterotypically evil employees who are taking control until he Sam actually does the smart thing and runs the company. Basically, Sam is the sterotype that we have not seen since the 1980's, and works a lot less now then it did then, instead making him seem like a bland loser who won't ever do the right thing because it's "lame".

Kevin Flynn is not much better. He is basically some kind of Messiah, but does absolutely nothing to stop the evil Clu. The film says early on that Kevin could easily destroy Clu, but at the cost of sacrificing himself. He has nothing to live for, thinking he'll never escape the electronic world or see his son again, and is supposed to be the kind of man who would do anything for the common good, so why he doesn't sacrifice himself makes no sense. Instead of sounding like a wise man and saint, Kevin comes across as a lazy old man who would rather sit down and read a book while millions are being inslaved and slaughtered.

The movie is just bad, and will be forgotten within the next ten years. I give the movie 2 out of 5 stars. It's bland, not thought out, and is nowhere near what the original film was like. Watch the original, and skip the sequel.

True Grit (2010)

Wanted Men Are Always So Hard To Find

I had not truly seen a western film until I went to see this film. Unless you count Blazing Saddles, which apperantly some don't. As such, I did not see the original (this is a remake for those who did not know). Despite my lack of westerns including the original film, I was looking forward to this film for months, the reason being it was the newest Coen Brothers movie. Joel and Ethan Coen have once again created a well put together and thought out film that was worth more of my money than I paid at the cinema. This film is simply entitled: True Grit

The plot is simple, a fourteen year old girl named Mattie ends up losing her father to a lowlife criminal by the name of Tom Chaney. Mattie is played by Hailee Steinfeld while Chaney is protrayed by Josh Brolin. I am very unfamilair with these actors, but I hope to see them in later films after watching them in this one.

Mattie attempts to catch her father's killer and bring him to justice, one way or the other. She hires U.S. Marshal Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn, played wonderfully by Jeff Bridges. Bridges' western accented voice is very rough and has a slur-like quality to it, but is he surprisingly very easy to comprehend. Cogburn is a drunk, a bit violent, and very much a cowboy.

Also looking for Chaney is Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Pronounced La Beef), played by Matt Damon. LaBoeuf informes Mattie that Chaney is a man who goes by multiple aliases and is quilty of killing a Texas politican, and as such he is out to bring him back to Texas to hang from his crimes. Mattie says she will not help LaBoeuf as she wants Chaney to be hanged in her state, as that would mean he would be executed for the crime he commited in that state, the murder of her father. There are times LaBoeuf is slightly unlikable, but it's mostly he is supposed to come off as arrogant and annoying to the others.

The movie is basically a search for Chaney, loaded with wonderful dialogue written by the Coen Bros. While I don't find it as interesting as the dialogue from Fargo (My favorite of theirs and one of my favorite films) it is nothing less than great dialogue that I'm sure will be qouted quite frequently, and sooner than later.

The film earns a solid 4 out of 5 stars from me. Easily one of the best films of 2010, and worth a fair amount of replays on the DVD and Blu-ray.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

A Good Kind of Magic

Doing a movie about the last book in a well beloved series takes a lot of emotion and talent to pull off. The makers of this film knew that, and showed us how much they did. The opening with not-so-little-anymore Hermoine wiping her parents memory catches the heart of the audience rather nicely; it makes us cry, but we know it's all for the best. This series may have started out for children only, but those children have grown up, and so have the films. Blood is shown on screen a fair amount, and in heavy doses. Hermoine nearly gets her throat slit, and we even see a small cut on it, which truly proves how serious the threat to cut her throat truly was.

I do actually like the whole 2-part idea. As this is an adaption, this gives the film a chance to use more things from its source material as well as time to add in whatever they wish. Considering how many fans of the series, including those who love the films, have said that quite a few too many scenes from the book were removed from the film, this is going to please a lot of fans. Also, some of the key moments in the books that were forgotten in the previous films are touched upon in this film, without feeling too forced or confusing.

It's nice to see pratically an encyclopedia of characters, and none of them end up over shadowing the other, excluding the main trio. Ron, Hermoine, and Harry take up most of the screen time, but they all share it quite well, giving each other enough important scenes and times for their character to shine through. Ron even goes away for a good portion of the film.

As for the special effects, I liked them, but was afraid in the beginning that they may go a little too far. Despite that, I was wrong. They were used to their potiental, and not overbaring, which has happens to more films than one can mention, mainstream or otherwise. But the biggest and best effect the movie had was the shadow and paper animation used during the three brothers story. That was animated just beautifully, and it was nice to see such animation again. Shadow animation in general is no longer common, and even if this was just CGI made to look like shadow animation it was still impressive and a little heartwarming to see that style again. I hope to see a full feature length film from the people who animated that sequence some time in the future.

I'll always love the book more, but the movie earns a solid 3 out of 5 stars. It's very good, even if it does drag a little, and sets us up for what's in store for the last movie.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Unfortunate May Be The Key Word



In the modern day where Harry Potter and Twilight are the most talked about book series, it wouldn't surprise me if a fair amount of people have never heard of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events. I have read through the first four books, and plan to finish the rest someday. The books will never leave my mind, as they are wonderful in there own right and deserve a read. The series was popular when I was still a child, enough that a movie was made about the first three books. That in itself speaks one of the problems with this film. I'm not saying that it didn't work, they did actually okay with that concept. If I remember correctly, each book was long enough for it's own individual movie, so I just don't see why they'd make one film for the first three books.
One thing to know about these books is that they are very dark. The main characters ( The Baudeliers) are orphaned in the first few pages from a raging house fire that burns their parents alive. A friend of theirs as well as their parents (who is also the family's banker in charge of their grand wealth) Mr. Poe, must now relocate them to a member of their family. The books are for children, but do give a little warning on the back that the books are depressing, which I'm sure the author knows no kid will care about and read anyway. This is one of my biggest highlights for the series, it takes it's audience very seriously, knowing any child who read it can understand it and take it seriously. Sure, it has it's funny moments, it's altogether a black comedy, but it still treated it's audience with repect, something a few modern children's films could stand to learn.

As for the film, this is true as well as not. It contains a lot of dark elements, but a lot more lighthearted and silly moments than necessary. It's like the the writer's were waving these scenes out at us saying "Ohhhh, look at the funny scenes, don't cry, don't cry." It's very unimpressive, but not unexpected as Nickelodeon did make this movie (along with Paramount).

The villain of this movie and the series is Count Olaf. In the books, Olaf is a cold-blooded killer motivated only by his own greed. But this isn't Scrooge McDuck greed, this is played dead-serious, villainous greed. He murders someone in every book excluding the first, and that's debatable because it's suggested in the books (and outright true in the movie) he started the fire that killed the main characters parents. He wants their fortune, and kills people left and right for it. However, in the movie he is played by Jim Carrey, who adds his normal over the top shtick, Sometimes it's not bad, even funny. Sometimes it's boring, even painful. If Olaf had been a purely comedic villain in the books this would have felt better, but he's not, he's one of the darkest villains I've read in children's books.
I do love the child actors who played the Baudelaire's. Their acting was very convincing, almost as good as the ones in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and child actors rarely get even close to that level. Granted, they were a little older, possibly. The actors in Wonka were all around 13, and I think that kid who played Klaus may have been around that age but Violet must have been 19 or so and Sunny was around 5 or so, which is good since she only had baby talk anyway.

Another great thing about the movie is the visuals. It won an Oscar for best make-up, and as many problems as I see in this movie I do completely agree the movie deserved the Oscar. The make-up is wonderful, as are the rest of the visuals. The make-up and costumes truly captured the dark and gothic world the books gave us.

But really, I can't say I recommend the movie. My rating is a 2.5 out of 5 stars. It did try, and there are aspects I do like about the film, but it just didn' work for me. It may sound sterotypical, but the books were better.

Piranha 3-D

Drowning Is The Least of Their Worries.

For those of you unfamiliar with the original (this is a remake), it will not matter, I did not see that movie either. Apparently it is just a Jaws rip-off. This film however, manages to instead go a different route, as a call-back to the gruesome, cheesy, needlessly 3-D horror films of the 1980's. And it does so without a hitch, keeping myself in stitches, while still scared thanks to good music cues and realistic blood effects, no CG blood here.

The cast is star-studded, although I'll admit I only recognized Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth. The cast does a great job all around. We grow to like the main character Jake (Played by Steven R McQueen, the grandson of the more well-known Steve McQueen) as well as his love interest Kelly, his younger siblings, his mother the sheriff, and her deputy played by Ving Rhames. Rhames also gives the best part of the movie, where he takes a small out-board motor against the piranhas.

The only unlikable characters, are (thankfully) supposed to be unlikable. If you watch this film as say "God, I hate this character" expect them to meet a gruesome and hilarious fate at the hands of the piranhas. These scenes are made all the more funny thanks to the 3-D. Things fly at us in the style that 3-D was meant for in the 1980s horror movie, but in this case it actually works, instead of just making the screen blue and red. 
 
I give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, but raise it to around 3.5 stars if watching in 3-D. There are stupid moments, but not that many. The film knew exactly what is wanted to be, and delivered it quite well.

Cowboys & Aliens

For Once, They Are Not After The Cattle.

Cowboys & Aliens, the title alone puts a visual into the average viewers head. A cheesy science-fiction movie, most likely containing hammy acting and crazy special effects. But while watching the movie, I found myself very invested in the plot and characters, and whenever I laughed, it was from an actual joke instead of a cheesy scene.

The reason I did actually go see the movie was because my all-time favorite actor was in it, Harrison Ford (Raiders of the Lost Ark, A New Hope). Ford plays against character for a change, he is the corrupt and rather violent cattle rancher with the town in his pocket, basically the western version of a Mafia boss. Unlike most western baddies, Ford actually grows over the film, warming up purely do to the fact he is a human at heart, having characters he cares for (his son, who is kidnapped by the aliens) and who care for him (his Native-American worker whose life he saved at a young age).

Due to being a bad guy, Ford is not the lead character, unlike what the trailer would make you believe. Our star is actually Jake Lonergan, played by Daniel Craig (The current James Bond). Jake is the leader of outlaws, but quits after he falls in love with a "working girl". He is kidnapped by the aliens, but escapes, only to lose his memory. While redeemed before the movie starts, you get the feeling Jake would have most likely stayed a thief (possibly still a killer) if not for the memory loss, which makes him spend a fair amount of the movie trying to find who he is. I think this is quite clever of the filmmakers, nearly all of the characters start of the movie as villains or just everyday people. But when the aliens (called demons by our heroes) show up and make it personal, they all go after them to save their loved ones, and end up saving the day for selfish reasons, while still becoming heroic characters.

The movie will be ignored by the film buffs (I say that as a film buff myself) purely because it's a western with aliens. They will say "This could have just been a straight western." I disagree, as I can see the formula working as a straight western, in a way that I can predict the entire plot and would most likely be right in my predictions. But as the movie is, it's very hard to guess what will happen next, and the movie is stronger for it, as it was the most surprising movie I've seen this summer. Nothing wrong with using a formula that will never be old, but doing something very different can lead to great results, and for me the movie did that.

My final verdict: 3.5 out of 5 stars. A great movie, from beginning to end.