"Divergent" Review

Divergent

4 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13

Mild language

Moderate amount of violence including a person's hand getting stabbed

Very little blood as a result of cuts

Some sexual content including the implication that a rape will happen, but nothing is shown.

While "Divergent" has its share of clichés, the world it introduces is fascinating to watch.

It is set in a post-apocalyptic future. Rather than a huge nation under control of a central government like "The Hunger Games," it is set in a single city, which is run as a utopian society. 

Almost everyone there belongs to one of five groups — known as factions — each with its own roles. The dauntless are physically fit police officers sworn to protect. Abnegation is a group of service oriented people who help others and serve as the government heads. Erudites are knowledge seekers who advance in science. People in Amity do farm work, and Candors are brutally honest individuals. The people who do not belong to any of these groups are known as "factionless" and are comparable to the homeless.

Members of this utopia choose which faction they want to be in when they are sixteen years old. They have a good idea of which one they should go to by taking a test. The main character, Tris (Shailene Woodley), goes through this test, and her results are inconclusive, which is known as "divergent." She is told to not to disclose this to anyone because divergents are hunted down. They are individualists, which is a threat to those in power.

Tris tells everyone that her results were abnegation, but when the time comes for her to choose which faction to be in, she goes to dauntless. Most of the plot is centered around her experiences as a new recruit to that faction.

The concept of the society itself is very interesting. When Tris actually gets into dauntless, it is intriguing to see the sub-culture of the faction unfold. A lot is new to the main character as well, so much of the film is the audience discovering various things with her.

There is a lot of story the movie has to go over. Because of this, it feels like certain things that should have been more emotional are not. It never gives the audience time to get to know characters that should be more important.

One such character is Jeanine (Kate Winslet), a Erudite in a position of power. She becomes the antagonist of the story, but her whole plan is developed very poorly. It is only known because people talk about it a few times. This movie could have benefitted by straying from the book a little bit and showing the antagonists' perspective. 

"The Hunger Games" movies did this. They are both based on books written in first-person, which only include main character's point-of-view. The movies take an extra step and show what is going on from the perspective of the villain. This gives the films a depth that is not present in the novels. It would have been great to see "Divergent" do the same thing.

The film is based on a young adult novel, so it definitely has cliché moments. Tris is a bland girl who is somehow different from everyone else. This ends up being of upmost importance in the end. She also gets involved in a romance with a strong, good-looking man named Four (Theo James). 

I will admit to not being a big fan of the romance. It seems a little forced especially in the scene in which they have their first kiss. It is made extra cheesy because of a pop song that accompanies it. However, the love story does not bother me that much. There is a surprising amount of relevance to it that drives the story along.

While Shailene Woodley does not deliver an outstanding performance, it is appropriate casting. There is a sense of innocence about her that is interesting to see in contrast to the rough world of the dauntless. It is supposed to change her, but Woodley's limitations in acting prevent this from being believable.

My rating for this film is a little higher than what most critics would give it. While there is not a lot of depth to the characters, I found it very entertaining to see the world it portrays. It is worth seeing in theatres.

"Muppets Most Wanted" Review

Muppets Most Wanted

2.5 out of 5 stars

Rated PG: 

A few uses of the word "God" as an expletive
Mild action sequences
Family friendly








The beginning of "Muppets Most Wanted" features a self-fulfilling prophesy when one of the characters says that the sequel is never as good as the first.

If that line sounds familiar, it is because the opening scene was released on the Internet a few weeks before the film's release. While funny, it highlight's the main problem with the film: most of what gets laughs is already in the commercials.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXppfX-mBsE

The story takes place right after the first movie. The Muppets just got done with a really big show, and a man named Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais) wants to take them on a world tour. Despite Kermit's reservations, they decide to go.

What they do not know is Badguy's last name describes his character. He works under the world's most evil frog, Constantine, who looks like Kermit in every way except for a mole on his face. Having escaped from a Russian prison, the amphibian super villain kidnaps Kermit and makes him look like Constantine by putting a mole on his face. This makes the police think the beloved hero is an escaped convict, and they throw him in the Siberian prison.

Constantine takes Kermit's place by putting some green cream over his mole and convincing everyone that his Russian accent is there because he's sick. He and Badguy plot to use the world tour to steal various artifacts that go together.

Most of what makes this film comical are the silly songs. There is one in which Constantine talks about how he is above Badguy. Several others occur in the prison. One recurring bit involves a very good singer in the solitary confinement box, who ends up being a celebrity cameo in the end.

There is also a very funny subplot in which Sam the Eagle, who is part of the CIA in this film, and a French intelligence agent, Jean Pierre Napoleon (Ty Burrell), investigate robberies that occur around the venues in which the Muppets perform. It makes fun of the differences between the ways Europeans and Americans do things.

Though there are some funny moments, a lot of the jokes either fall flat or they are already in the advertisements. In fact, I had already seen most of what was funny before going in. There are some good moments, but a majority of the time, it feels like it is trying too hard to get a laugh out.

I also did not like the way it the film sets itself up. Kermit feels sad because he does not think the Muppets respect his feelings. This feels a little forced to me.

I would not recommend seeing it in theatres, but it could be something to check out on Redbox or Netflix, especially for fans of the Muppets.

"Sabotage" Review

Sabotage

1.5 out of 5 stars

Rated R:

Quite a few scenes of bloody violence
Internal organs are shown
Features two girls making out, one of them topless
Several other instances of female topless nudity








I heard about "Sabotage" through commercials on television. There were few to no interviews or television spots. After seeing it, I understand why.

Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a DEA agent known as Breacher. He and his crew storm a cartel where they are to confiscate millions of dollars. Something happens there, the money disappears, and they are under investigation.

For some reason, they refuse to tell anyone what happened to the money. This part had me very confused. When they are in the cartel's home, it looks like Breacher burns the money. I could not figure out why he did it, and when he and his crew being questioned, it is unclear why they will not say anything. Later on, it is revealed that they were planning to take the money, but it disappeared. The money still exists somewhere, but why was it shown burning?

After the investigation is dropped, someone starts brutally killing people in Breacher's crew one-by-one. The plot then focuses on another investigation by an agent named Caroline (Olivia Williams). She wants to find out who is behind everything, and none of the main characters will tell her anything.

Even though this is mildly interesting, there is little reason to care about it. None of the characters who die are developed well enough to be of any concern to the audience. Furthermore, the beginning leaves so many distracting questions about what happened that it is hard to focus on what is going on.

The performances are sub-par. Schwarzenegger is a good action star, but he is not much of an actor. In some scenes when the characters are talking to each other, it feels like watching a couple of WWE wrestlers arguing. Only two of the main DEA agents actually give convincing performances: Terrence Howard as Sugar and Mireille Enos as the drugged-out Lizzy. However, the bad quality of the writing does not justify seeing this film just for them.

There is a plot point about revenge that is interesting. Had the movie focused more attention on that rather than some convoluted mess, it would have been so much more enjoyable to watch. The only reason to see it is for the well-executed action scenes, but there are not even enough of those to justify wasting time on it.

Follow me on Twitter: ChrisCampbell02
Like my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

"Noah" Review

Here's a message for big-time Hollywood producers: if you are setting out to make a movie based on the Bible or any other religious text, have someone direct it who actually understands the context.

Writer/director Darren Aronofsky took a lot of artistic liberties with the Biblical epic "Noah." In reality, when adapting a movie from the Bible it is necessary to change quite a bit. Anyone who has read it knows that there is not a lot of description about the way the world was from the Fall of Adam and Eve until Noah. In fact, most of the verses after Cain kills Abel do nothing more than name  descendants until Noah.

When the Bible gets to Noah, the only description of the world is that it is violent and full of corruption. All that is known about Noah is he is a righteous man, who was commanded by God to build a very big boat with two of every animal to prepare for forty days of constant rain that is to flood the whole earth. He and his family are in there for a little while until they find dry land. They then live their lives and have kids, continuing the race of man.

Other than that, we as readers are given nothing about who the characters are or what their situation is. Noah is described as a righteous man, but what are his flaws? The world is described as violent, but what is the extent of it? Was violence the only thing the people of that culture valued? Or was it still looked down upon but ever-present like it is in America today? Furthermore, what exactly is the relationship between Noah's family and the rest of the world?

These are some questions that should be addressed when recreating the story, and that is why artistic liberties need to be taken. This movie does it, but Aronofsky does not pay attention to the basic beliefs behind the Bible.

For example, in the movie Noah (Russell Crowe) and his family are vegetarians. They think of themselves equal to the animals. Rather than building the ark to continue the human race, they see it as a way to protect the creatures, who they claim are the only innocent beings after the Fall of Adam. 

In my belief — and I'd assume in the beliefs of a majority of religious people —
God gave humans dominion over animals. This means humans are greater and more important than them. Though we should not be excessive about it, animals are meant to be eaten. 

I am not being preachy about my own beliefs. Anyone who disagrees and decides to live the vegetarian lifestyle is free to do so. I would also assume a lot of people who believe in the Bible do not eat meat, and that is fine. What I am saying is a majority of people who believe this story happened probably eat meat, and trying to say Noah was a vegetarian is a little bit on the preachy side.

The family's vegetarianism leads to a plot point I had a very hard time with. There are certain things Noah does that has to do with these beliefs. A lot of the film's conflict arises from it, and he becomes a downright miserable character to watch.

Part of my problem with this is how inconsistent it is with how the Bible describes Noah. It says he actually walked with God. In this movie, while God communicates with him, he does not seem to understand basic things about His nature that someone who walked with God would.

Even before this conflict arises, the characters are not fleshed out as much as I would have liked. Russell Crowe does a good job with what he has. However, the writing and direction makes him unlikeable. He is unrealistically serious all the time. Everything is doom and gloom with him. This is partly because of the fact that all people in the world — aside from his family — are murderous, bloodthirsty heathens. But there should at least be some moments in which he is happy. There should be some reason to root for him as the protagonist and title character, and there is none.

The film is not completely joyless. The visuals are very impressive. There is a certain mythology Aronofsky is creative with. I do not know this for sure, but I think it comes from a passage in that Bible that says there were giants during Noah's time. In Aronofsky's world, these giants are known as "watchers." They are large moving rocks with lights in their eyes and chests. What is impressive about them is they seem to be animated using stop-motion. It gives an interesting aesthetic to the film. They also have an interesting origin story. It definitely takes liberties that stray from the Bible, but it is entertaining.

The scene in which the ark actually gets into the water is also very cool looking. It shows the sheer amount of epic Aronofsky was going for. As they are floating by, there is a shot of a mountain that has not been covered by the flood. Something happens there, which I will not spoil. I will say it is an artistic shot that adds a very interesting perspective to the classic Bible story.

There are other interesting visuals that make the film worth seeing. One of them is a time lapse accompanied by a story Noah tells near the middle of the film about the history of the world. 

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It is a very good looking film, and the story is involving at parts. However, the characters who are not unlikeable are not fleshed out, and it takes liberties that do not work for the target audience.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is action violence throughout the film involving stabbings and heads being bashed in a silhouette. At least one scene shows someone's head being bashed on-screen with some blood splatter. There is some blood throughout the film, but splatters are not as explicitly shown as they would be in an R-rated movie. There are also some disturbing images. A couple of parts deal with sexuality, but it does not show anything. It is not something I would recommend seeing with young children. 

D-Box Review

Movie theatres across the world have been trying to get people to come with gimmicks to make it more like a theme park. Most people have already experienced this with 3D. One that is a little  more expensive and a little less common is D-Box, which I had the opportunity to experience while watching "Need for Speed."

For those who do not know what it is, D-Box is a special seat in the theatre that is programmed to move in sync with what is going on in the film. It is quite remarkable technology. Programmers actually go through the film and coordinate the motions to each scene as explained in this video:



NOTE: The video ends at a very weird point. It is more than likely a segment of a larger feature.

Like 3D, it tries to make the movie theatre something it is not: an amusement park ride. With 3D, things are supposed to either pop out or add depth. Most of the movies that are filmed with the extra dimension do not take advantage of this because they still have a story that needs to be told about other people. With theme parks, it is more natural because they deal with the audience. Often in 3D rides, the audience is a main character. That is not the case with the movies. We are watching other characters do things rather than watching a moment we are supposedly involved in.

With D-box, it is supposed to be a mini-flight simulator like "Star Tours" in Disneyland. In that ride, it is the same concept as most of the 3D attractions. The audience members are involved because they are main characters riding in a spaceship. In movie theatres, it is different. Even in films like "Need for Speed," the audience is not constantly in a car driving around. It is a story about other people in the car. The shots are not constantly on the road. Many of them are focused on the drivers.

Furthermore, in "Star Tours" the flight simulator moves people forward. In D-Box, while the seat can rumble, it cannot actually go anywhere, and it does not feel like the sensation of driving.

However, that is not to say it does not enhance the overall cinematic experience. It does. In one scene, a car is flipped high in the air, and the way the chair moves in sync with it feels surreal. Rather than casually watching, it puts into perspective the horror of being in a situation like that.

While the audience is not a character in most films, the best ones can put the audience in the characters' place. If it is doing its job, the film should make us feel it. A great movie that does this is "Captain Phillips." It is based on a true story about a cargo ship that is taken over by pirates. Hearing this on the news does not capture the pure terror of the situation the way a well-done movie can, and that is what I liked about that movie.

D-Box is just another way for us empathize with the characters. If something is supposed to be intense, the chair makes it even more powerful. It has the potential to make badly-written films bearable. I just hope it does not encourage lazy writing because of this.

So the main question is "is it worth the high cost?" The price of a D-Box ticket is a whopping eight dollars on top of the original cost. If you have a little extra cash, and you want to try it out for curiosity's sake, it is worth it at least once. While it is not always necessary, it does add to the overall experience.

"Philomena" Review

The only Oscar nominee for Best Picture I did not get to see before the Academy Awards was "Philomena" because it did not come to my area on time. It arrived about a week later, and over spring break, I had the opportunity to see it. Like "Dallas Buyers Club" this one was eye-opening to me.

Rather than being about AIDS in America, it deals with corruption among Catholic nuns. In the 1950s, Philomena (her younger self played by Sophie Kennedy Clark and the older Philomena played by Judi Dench) is impregnated by a man she is not married to. Shunned by her parents, she seeks help from a convent where the nuns agree to provide basic living needs – including childcare – in exchange for working grueling hours of labor.

However, there is a catch: the nuns are free to give her child up for adoption without consent. Needless to say this happens, and she is never told where her child went. Fifty years go by without her telling anyone until she discloses the story to her daughter, who gets in contact with a bitter, out-of-work journalist named Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan). Seeing that there could be a good story from it, he and Philomena go on an adventure to find out what happened to her long-lost son.

Telling anything more about this movie would give away spoilers. A big part of its entertainment value is finding out what happened. Later on, it is revealed that there are more details to what the nuns did, and it makes them look even more awful.

A lot of the film  is about how differently Philomena and Martin Sixsmith look at what the nuns have done. The bitter journalist sees it as a reason to hate God, and he goes through several rants about why this makes it easy for him to not believe. Philomena, on the other hand, does not see it that way. Even though her faith is shaken at times because religious people have done bad things, she never loses her belief in God. Without spoiling anything, a major theme ends up being forgiveness.

The problem with this is while the film certainly tries to have an uplifting message, it is not nearly as powerful as it should be. Leaving the theatre, Sixsmith's rants stuck out in my mind more than the message of forgiveness. While the movie does address Philomena's distaste of the journalist's behavior towards other people, it does not seem as obvious as what he says about the nuns. This does not make the film bad at all. It is just a minor nit-pick looking at the film from surface level.

Judi Dench was nominated for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in the 2014 Academy Awards for her portrayal of the title character. Having now seen this film, I understand why. She does an outstanding job playing a lovable, forgiving woman, who strives to treat people in the most Christian way possible. This is in stark contrast to the character I know her by: M from the James Bond films. In that franchise, Dench plays a cold, professional woman, who keeps her distance emotionally.

As M, she is more like Steve Coogan's portrayal of Martin Sixsmith. Recently unemployed, he is a bitter man who has learned to keep an emotional distance because of his profession in journalism. Coogan did a great job in his performance.

I give this film four out of five stars. It is definitely worth seeing, but it is not something you need to drop everything to watch right now.

Content: Rated PG-13. Keep in mind, this film was rated R originally before being re-rated on appeals. It was only that rating because it has two "F" words in it. While it does not show anything, the characters do talk about sex two or three times, which includes Philomena talking about how she enjoyed her sexual experience.

"Mr. Peabody and Sherman" Review

"Mr. Peabody and Sherman" has a charming premise and some funny jokes, but it often tries too hard to get laughs.

Just describing the story is pretty funny on its own. Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell) is a very smart, talking dog who knows a little bit about everything. He is so intelligent that he convinced the courts to let him adopt a boy named Sherman (Max Charles). In order to educate his son, he built a time machine that they use to go on regular adventures to find out what really happened in history.

Of course having a dad who is a dog can be reason for humiliation at school, which is what happens when Sherman starts attending. When a girl named Penny (Ariel Winter) makes fun of him, he acts up, and Mr. Peabody wants to make amends with her family.

While the dog is entertaining Penny's parents (the father voiced by Stephen Colbert and the mother by Leslie Mann), Sherman gives into peer pressure and shows her the time machine. This sparks a series of events that leads Mr. Peabody to intervene in an adventure through various time periods including ancient Egypt, the Italian Renaissance and the battle at Troy.

There are some parts that had me laughing. My favorite scene involves the battle at Troy. Patrick Warburton -- best known as Kronk and David Puddy -- voices Agamemnon, a Greek king inside the Trojan horse. When they are about to go into the city of Troy, he gets the warriors pumped up like they are about to go play football. Odysseus also has a cameo, and he is not at all like the man from "The Odyssey."

This film is mostly made for children, and that is very obvious. While some jokes are funny for adults, there are a lot that are not. In some parts, the film tries too hard by adding one or two extra lines or having characters repeat each other in a desperate attempt for laughs. None of the jokes are blatantly offensive. They just fall flat.

There is also a section of this film that I felt was pretty slow. I have been pretty busy this week, so this review is several days late, and I do not remember what section it was exactly. It was probably about the second act. The introduction was pretty strong in introducing the characters, and the final act had some interesting concepts behind it, but the middle was a little sloppy if I remember right.

The characters are charming in this film. It is interesting to see the father-son relationship between Mr. Peabody and Sherman. The dog is very logical and scientific. He tries to have an objective, scholarly approach at the world even when it comes to love. It is obvious that he loves Sherman, and this film is very much about how he comes to the realization of this.

I was going to rate this movie pretty harshly at first. A lot of the jokes were pretty boring, and it honestly did not have my attention the whole way through. However, after thinking about it, it really is a charming show. It gets three out of five stars from me. I would not recommend seeing it in theatres, but it is one to see if you have children and you want to watch a good family-oriented show.

Content: Rated PG. This is honestly pretty safe for families. There are a few small innuendos that should go over kids heads. In one scene, a baby's buttocks is shown. There are some mild action scenes, but nothing extreme at all.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Need for Speed" Review

Despite some confusing moments, "Need for Speed" proves to be a very entertaining action flick with enough racing scenes to go around.

There is no question that this movie will be compared to the "Fast and Furious" films. Those are about street racers, and this one is about street racers. The thing that disappoints me about the other films is they do not always take advantage of this fact. There are some awesome race scenes, but they are so few and far between. "Fast Five" even brushes over one. It implies that a race occurred, but it never actually shows it.

"Need for Speed" takes advantage of the racing by utilizing a plot that serves as nothing more than a tool to keep the audience involved. The story is simple: in order to get revenge, Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul), an expert street racer, needs to travel from New York to California within within about 50 hours (give or take) with a hot British woman named Julia Maddon (Imogen Poots). His goal is to enter the De Leon, a prestigious street race, in order to get back at Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper), who had done something very bad.

Of course, he has to drive very quickly, often recklessly just to make it on time. Furthermore, in order to enter the race, he needs to get noticed by a vlogger named Monarch (Michael Keaton). Tobey gains the man's attention by showing up on the news after committing traffic violations and being chased by the cops.

Furthermore, Dino does not want Tobey to make it to the race, so he offers a reward to anyone who stops him from making it to California.

All of these plot points together create a fun-to-watch, fast-paced film. The writers do a great job throwing conflict at the characters including from the cops and from Dino, which keeps the audience involved. Furthermore, Tobey's motivation for entering the race is in and of itself interesting.

The main reason I was looking forward to this film is because of Aaron Paul. Those who know who he is probably recognize him from "Breaking Bad" as Jesse Pinkman. He has been nominated for four Emmys and won twice for not only portraying the drugged-out meth cook, but causing the audience to love him as a person.

Paul does a great job with what he has in this film. There are several parts that require him to show some extreme emotion, and he does it well. However, his character is not given much. All that is known about him is he is a good person and a good racer/mechanic. There is not a lot of depth to him for Paul to showcase.

It really seems like he did not know what to do with himself during the first half hour. That time is mostly used for exposition, and it starts off pretty slow. Furthermore, it is often hard to follow because some characters are talked about before they even appear. They are not introduced properly.

Another confusing aspect of this film is the logic does not always make sense. The man who sets up the main race is a vlogger, who somehow has never been caught, yet everyone knows what he looks like. His voice is actually what sets up the opening scene, and this had me confused because it sounds like something on the radio, but that would be impossible since street racing is illegal.

As in most movies, a romance is built between the main male and female character. Imogen Poots does a very good job at portraying Julia, a car-saavy British woman. Her and Paul have a very good chemistry that works well.

Despite Tobey not being a very deep character, he is actually a pretty good role-model for someone living outside the law. When he gets caught, he serves his time. He never fights the police back. Whenever his friends are hurt, he goes back to help. The character does some great things, and he deserves to get what he wants in the end. I actually really like the character.

Another likeable character is his pilot friend, Benny (Scott Mescudi). He is partly there for the comic relief, and as a way for Tobey to know what is coming up. The character actually flies around in an aircraft to see what is happening on the road so he can warn everybody. It is a pretty brilliant idea.

This film is not going to win any Academy Awards, and it certainly does not try to be an Oscar contender. It is simply a fun racing movie that does not overstay its welcome. At just 130 minutes, it is the perfect length. I give it three and a half out of five stars. If you are looking for a fun flick to watch without thinking too much, this is one to go see. I would not mind seeing it become a film franchise like the "Fast and Furious" movies.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is a moderate amount of profanity throughout the film, and no "F" words. The film is mostly rated PG-13 for violence. There are some intense car crashes throughout the film. A little bit of blood shown is shown, which comes from scratches, but it is not gory. There is maybe one or two sexual innuendos that will go over children's heads. One scene features male backside nudity for about a solid thirty seconds (it is meant to be comical).

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"300: Rise of an Empire" Review

"300: Rise of an Empire" has just as much violent, testosterone-filled eye-candy as the first film, and it adds a certain level of depth to the war between the Persians and the Greeks.

The first film, "300," is about the Spartan resistance against the Persian empire. Because of some greed and politics, Leonidas, the king of the Spartans, cannot send his army, so he takes 300 soldiers to fight against thousands of men who threaten their way of life. The resistance is very successful at first. The Spartans kill a ton of Persians while losing very few lives. However, an act of betrayal puts them in a tight situation, and all of them die except for the man who narrates the story.

"300: Rise of an Empire" is about the Athenian resistance in the same war. It goes into detail about how it began and how the Athenians were able to stand their ground.

One of the first scenes takes place at the bottom of a hill near the city Marathon. The Persians depart there as they are about to invade, but the Greeks will not let them. An army led by the Athenian king, Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton), comes down and slaughters the Persians while they are trying to set up camp.

Out of both films, this scene is among the most fun to watch. Themistocles fights a bunch of Persians with a large array of slashes and dodges. This is depicted with a liberal use of slow-motion reminiscent of the first movie. While watching this opening, my friend and I freaked out from the sheer awesomeness of it.

During this battle, the Persian king is killed, and he is succeeded by Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro). Anyone who has seen the first film knows he is the one who sent the Persians into Greece. However, in this film, it is not his idea to do so. It is actually the Persian general, Artemisia (Eva Green), who manipulates him into deciding to invade.

Eva Green does a great job as Artemisia, the Darth Vader of "300." She is ruthless and will not stop until she gets what she wants. If a commander does not succeed, she kills him to send a message that she will not take failure. The scene in which this happens reminded me of when the dark lord of the Sith says "Apology accepted, Captain Needa" in "The Empire Strikes Back."

While Xerxes is sending men against the 300 soldiers, Artemisia leads an army against Athens in a series of battles on the sea. Themistocles leads the resistance against them. Since the Greeks are very outnumbered, they rely on sheer tactic. Part of what makes this movie so entertaining is to see how well   Themistocles's strategy works.

Both films in the "300" series emphasize the need to defend freedom when the time comes. Many people know this as a very American ideal, but a lot of it came from ancient Greece.

There are some interesting visuals to show the differences between the motivations of the Greeks and the Persians. As Artemisia leads her army to fight the Athenians, Themistocles gives a speech preparing them for battle. This is intercut with a depiction of the Persian ships being rowed by people with a lot of lashes on their backs. While the Greeks are fighting to protect their land, the Persians are depicted as doing it out of fear. The movie does not have to constantly remind the audience about this. Instead, it decides to show it.

Another great thing about both films is just how different the cultures of the Spartans and the Athenians are. In "300," Spartan culture is depicted as being based on defense. It emphasizes being physically fit for war so much that babies with deformities of any kind are discarded before they can grow.

The Athenians are not so much like this. They are artists and craftsmen. The only reason they fight is to defend themselves and their liberties.

While there is a lot of good to say about this movie, there were a couple of things that did not quite work. One of them is the chronology of events. This flaw comes partly because there is a narrator who tries to rhetorically introduce everything. This causes the movie to jump around to different events at different times, and it is slightly confusing. However, the story is simple enough to where it is easy to get back on track.

Another thing that is not very good about this film is there is a very weird sex scene. I will not reveal what happens in it, but it seemed to only be in the movie because some producers said "Hey, let's add a sex scene."

This film is actually gorier than the first one. There is so much blood that it is not realistic. Furthermore, it is obviously added by computer graphics. While some people might find this annoying, I actually did not mind it. In fact, in my opinion, it adds to the overall aesthetics of the film.

I give this movie four and a half out of five stars. If you are a fan of "300," then definitely see this film. In many ways it is just as good. If you do not like the first one, this film will not convert you.

Content: Rated R. There is a lot of bloody violence throughout the film. There are about four to six instances of the F-word, and that might even be overstating it. The movie also contains at least three instances of topless female nudity, which is present in the sex scene.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Non-Stop" Review

Despite the bad choices by the protagonist, "Non-Stop" succeeds at creating intensity by throwing the audience through several loops.

Liam Neeson plays Bill Marks, a United States air marshall assigned to an international flight to London. When the plane is already in the air, he receives a series of texts from an unknown source saying that someone will die every twenty minutes unless money is transferred into a specific account.

Saying anything more about this film would be spoiling it. There are a ton of unexpected scenarios throughout it. Anyone who has seen the trailer knows that someone dies in the bathroom. However, the way this all comes about is different than what the trailers suggest. There also ends up being a little more to the demands than what the text messages say.

Director Jaume Collet-Serra does an excellent job creating an intense atmosphere. A lot of the film involves reading text messages, which has the potential to be boring. In order to make it interesting, a lot of shots involve showing what the texts say in mid-air. One scene features the camera encircling the protagonist as new messages appear in front of the audience and old messages are pushed behind the man.

While the film does not focus a ton on every individual character, there is enough development to where the audience cares about what happens. In one aspect, the film actually pokes fun at the audience's own stereotypes. One of the passengers onboard is a Middle Eastern man. This is a minor spoiler, but he is not a bad guy. He actually ends up helping Bill Marks throughout.

The film throws a lot of crazy situations at the audience, which builds up suspense to a very satisfying climax. There are several things happening near the end that had me hyperventilating at the edge of my seat.

The main problem I have with this movie is Marks's choices are often irrational. He constantly demands things of the passengers, who keep demanding he tell them what is going on. For some reason, he hold off doing so. Everyone knows something is wrong, and his choice to withhold information seems to cause a lot more panic than there would be if was straightforward with them in the first place.

When the antagonists reveal their plans, there are some logical errors with what they want to do. Saying anything more about this would be a spoiler. Just know that what they want to do does not seem well thought out.

I give this film four out of five stars. There are errors in the way the characters react throughout the film, but it is still very enjoyable. There is a suspenseful atmosphere that builds up to a satisfying, uncomfortable climax.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is action violence throughout. One scene shows blood when a man is shot in the head. Rather than an R-rated splatter coming from the back, it just shows a small hole in the front with some blood around it. There is brief sexuality in the beginning, but it is implied. It does not show anything. The film has moderate language including one F-word spoken and two or three that are implied in the text messages (there is a crack in the screen in a very convenient place).

"Son of God" Review

In 2003, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*, produced a film called "Finding Faith in Christ." Not only is it free on YouTube (click here), but it is much better than "Son of God," a 20th Century Fox production that costs about $9.00 in theatres.


It must be difficult to make an adaptation of someone's life from the Bible. Most of what is known of Christ's life come from a long list of stories and parables. Since they have been edited and translated so much over the centuries, there is a lot left out, which makes it hard to make a coherent plot. In order to do so, there has to be a lot of creative liberties.

That is where "Son of God" suffers the most. It focuses way too much on showing as many stories as it can from the New Testament. The writers apparently had a checklist of Bible stories to get through. It does this by attempting to create a chronology of what must have happened including a forced subplot dealing with Jewish leaders conspiring against the threat of an uprising from Jesus's followers. The story is very disjointed and feels like a bunch of scenes were just thrown in there.

This is why I personally like the storytelling of "Finding Faith in Christ" so much better. It is set during the forty days that Christ was in Jerusalem after he was resurrected. The apostle Thomas doubts that he did resurrect, and his friends try to convince him that it happened through various stories about Christ's life. The film makes no attempt at trying to make sense of any chronology. It simply tells the stories that are known without deviating from the Bible.

In "Son of God," there are deviations that do not work. An example is the story of the adulterer who is presented in front of Christ. The Pharisees expect Him to condemn her to death, but He says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

This film attempts to take a more dramatic approach to this story. Everyone in the crowd already has a stone to throw at her. He picks up a stone and takes aim at her. Instead of following through, he holds the stone out and says that he will give it to the person who is without sin. The crowd immediately drops the stones. However, what he said never implied that they should do so. Had the writers stuck with the dialogue from the original text, this scene would have been so much more powerful, which is how "Finding Faith in Christ" handled it.

That is not to say all of the artistic liberties fell short. I personally like the way the film portrays Jesus Christ more so than even "Finding Faith in Christ." The Christ I usually see on-screen is almost robotic in that he always stands up straight and speaks softly. The reason for this is to show how majestic, peaceful and loving he is. While it works, it seems unnatural. Yes, he was perfect, but he must have also been charismatic for so many people to like him.

In this film, Christ is more charismatic. The first scene with him is when he first meets Peter on the fishing boat. It is funny because he pretty much invites himself on the boat without explanation. There is a sort of playfulness about him but also a sense of mystery in that he knows Peter's name without having been told.

In other scenes, he actually reacts to what is being done. When people are yelling at him, his face shows that it affects him. When his hands and feet are nailed to the cross, he wails. These are natural human reactions. As Godly as Christ is and was, he was still human. He felt physical pain. In other adaptations of his life, there is a sort of "Superman" approach to him. Whenever something happens, he seems to ignore the pain.

This film had a production budget of $22 million. That is not a ton of money to spend on a movie, especially when attempting to do special effects. Whenever something happens in the city of Jerusalem, it shows a very fuzzy computer model of it. It was very distracting and made me wonder about the choices in the direction. Another bad choice was making the holes in Christ's hands see-through. If done right, this could have been good, but it was distracting and kind of creepy. The film could have definitely been done without any special effects at all.

I give this film two and a half out of five stars. It really is a mess when it comes to story-telling and production value. However, I really like the way Christ is portrayed, and it does add some new insight to stories I grew up with. To those who are religious, I would recommend seeing it when it comes out if you really want to. However, there are better productions -- such as the one cited above -- that can be seen for free.

Rating: Rated PG-13. There are a few scenes of blood, violence and torture. In one scene, there is silhouette of a stabbing followed by some blood splatters.

*I am a member of that church. Though I do not intend to shove my religion down anyone's throat, this review reflects my own views.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02