"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Review

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

4 out of 5 stars


Rated PG-13
Action violence throughout
A few non-gory disturbing images
with little blood
Very mild language









Though it has its share of problems and Saturday-morning-cartoon cheesiness, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" presents the best depiction of the comic book character that I have ever seen.

Those who have read the comic books know that Spider-Man is a wildly sarcastic character. While he fights the biggest super villains, he talks trash to them, which often makes them very angry. Unfortunately, this has not been translated very well into film. Sam Raimi's depiction of him in the 2000s had a couple moments of this, but one who knows the character solely off of those films would not have known that he is supposed to be sarcastic.

This changed a little bit when Sony rebooted the franchise into "The Amazing Spider-Man" in 2012. In that film, he does this several times, but in the sequel — which was released today — he does it a lot more.

Where the first film had a more intimate, darker feel with its use of cinematography and lighting, this one is more grand and light. Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) is already established as a major super hero by now, and it starts off with breathtaking shots of him swinging his web in New York City, looking for criminals to fight. The ones he encounters are met with his hilarious sarcasm, which is a big part of why I fell in love with the character in the first place.

Another reason has to do with him being a role model. He is met with a lot of adversity that he utilizes to become a better person. The first major one being his realization that he cannot be selfish with his powers when his actions cause the death of his uncle.

This film is about another piece of personal adversity he needs to sort through. At the end of the first film, Peter Parker is forced to promise his girlfriend's dying father (Denis Leary) that as long as he is a vigilante, he will stay away from her. The reason is Spider-Man will make a lot of enemies, and this could be dangerous for her.

This proves to be difficult as he and Gwen (Emma Stone) are in love, and it is too hard for them to move on. They continue seeing each other, but Peter feels so guilty that he sees images of her father in random areas. A big portion of the film is Peter figuring out what to do with himself.

The on-screen chemistry Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield two is very good. Several scenes feature them in moments of silly banter that are actually entertaining. In the end, I care about what happens to the relationship, which is exactly what the film tries to do.

After seeing it, I was super excited because for once they got the character right with the sarcasm and moral dilemmas. When I got home, I watched a YouTube video in which it was stated that a lot of critics gave poor reviews to this film. Being a critic myself, I try to stay away from websites like Rotten Tomatoes because they tend to bias my opinions. However, knowing that this film has been getting negative reviews, I decided to look it up. It currently has a 54%, which means only that amount of critics liked it.

The reason that was cited is the unfocused plotline. Peter's relationship problems are the focus at the beginning, and then there are several other things including him finding out what happened to his parents, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) trying to find information he desperately needs and Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) become an electric-powered mutant out for revenge.

Ultimately these plots all lead to a couple of bad guys wanting to kill Spider-Man. This would be an okay plot point if it weren't for the laziness of the writers. They could not seem to come up with a very good motivation for the villains to want to kill the hero. While Max Dillon's could be justified because of his emotional instability, the other villain is a total cry baby. Without a proper reason to want to do something so serious, the film feels like a Saturday morning cartoon, which is not the tone it was going for.

With that being said, Jamie Foxx kills it as Max Dillon. The set-up for the character is very well done, with some hilarious scenes establishing who he is. If it were not for the weak development after he becomes a super villain, he would have been an awesome bad guy.

The climax is very satisfying. Even though the villains have very weak motivations, the fight scenes in the third act are epic. They are some of the best action sequences I have ever seen in a super-hero movie.

There is something very big that happens. Without spoiling anything, it is something that affects Peter Parker. In fact, it should have affected him more. The last five minutes are about what happens after the fact, and it feels very rushed. There should have been an entire movie dealing with it.

Overall, this movie is definitely worth seeing. It does have its share of quirks and lazy writing, but the visuals and characterizations make it very entertaining.

"Transcendence" Review

Transcendence

3 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13

Moderate amount of violence
Moderate violent or bloody images
Mild amount of language
One scene of sexuality between a married couple,
but nothing is shown, and they just kiss







"Transcendence" is a mix of "Her" and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" sprinkled with some "1984," but not nearly as well thought-out.

Johnny Depp plays Will Caster, a brilliant scientist who has been experimenting with artificial intelligence. He has an idea he calls "transcendence," in which a mind is uploaded into a very powerful computer.

There are some people who think this is a very bad idea. They are part of a radical group who think technology has been going too far and making people impersonal. The group kills a several people involved in the project, and one of the members shoots Caster.

Caster does not die right then, but the bullet was laced with some kind of poison that kills him slowly. Before dying, his wife, Evelyn (Rebecca Hall), and the couple's friend, Max Waters (Paul Bettany), upload his brain into a computer so he is still there after he is gone.

The exact procedure of doing this is not very clear, which is part of the problem with this movie. The dialogue is good, the concept is interesting, but the actual showing how everything works is not very well executed. Those who made this film did not seem to understand how this would work.

It seems that the characters do not completely understand how it works either because they debate throughout the film whether the artificial intelligence really is Will Caster or if it is just a simulation of him. The only clear thing is the computer itself is an artificial intelligence that is bent on changing the world.

That is where the conflict comes in. The computer becomes so powerful that a lot of people are scared, and it seems the radical anti-technology group was right about a lot of things. The plot ends up focusing on how some characters work to stop it.

I was pretty entertained throughout the film, but my mind was not blown like it was with "Her," a film with a similar concept, but executed a lot better. What that film did right was describe the characters so thoroughly that they seem real. Even the computer's artificial intelligence in that film seems like a genuine person.

In this film, there is not a lot of set up for the characters themselves. Their personalities are not very distinct from one another. Will Caster is just a very brilliant man who wants to learn. When his mind is uploaded into the computer, he seems kind of robotic. There is not much to Evelyn either. She is also a scientist who is smart and who marvels at the fact that her dead husband is in the computer. There is not much else to describe either of them.

Their relationship is also not very well developed. We know that Evelyn loves Will, but the depth of their relationship is not described very well. There is very little emotional investment from the audience's part when she is trying to save her husband.

When he becomes the computer, there is a space of two years that the film skips. At first Evelyn is completely happy he is there, and then after that time period, she seems scared of him. This would have been so much more impactful had it shown what happens during that span. How is their relationship? What do they talk about? The description is not there, and this causes the film to go from a potentially awesome movie to a mediocre sci-fi.

A reason for this lack of character development probably has to do with the filmmakers wanting to throw some twists at the audience. However, had it just stuck to showing us how everything worked, the film would have been so much better.

Despite its flaws, "Transcendence" is actually thought provoking in some ways, and it is entertaining to watch. If you can handle mediocre story structure, I would recommend this film, but it is not something you need to rush out to see.

"Draft Day" Review

Draft Day

3 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13

Mild amount of language including one f-word
A few mentions of sex, but it is not detailed









While "Draft Day" offers insight into the workings of the National Football League, it is not a must-see.

The entire film takes place on draft day, when coaches and general managers of the NFL frantically figure out who they are going to choose to play on their teams. Kevin Costner plays the general manager for the Cleveland Browns, Sonny Weaver Jr. He really wants to do something great that day to turn the program around and ensure that both players and fans will be satisfied with his decision.

He gets a possible chance at doing this when the Seattle Seahawks approach him that morning and offer to let him choose Bo Callahan, a quarterback who will undoubtedly be the draft favorite. In return, he is to give the Seahawks his first round picks for the next three years. He agrees to this trade, and it does not sit well with everyone including the Browns' head coach played by Denis Leary. It causes quite a stir, and the whole movie is about him deciding whether he will go through with picking Callahan or choose someone else.

When the film starts, it feels a little bit like watching Sports Center. For some people, that is a good thing. However, for people like me, who are not that interested in professional sports and tend to zone out when other people watch ESPN, it is a slow, boring start. It is also confusing to people who do not know much about how the draft works. It took me about half of the movie to really grasp what was happening.

This is partly because a lot of the film is exposition. It is just characters explaining things, explaining other characters, explaining situations. It would have been so much better had it introduced by showing rather than telling.

For example, Weaver has a relationship with his assistant Ali (Jennifer Garner), who is mad at him for something he said that morning. However, rather than showing what he said, it simply shows her being angry after the fact. Throughout the film, they talk it through, but there is little reason to really care about it.

Bo Callahan is not the only choice he needs to make. There are a couple of other players who really want to be on the Cleveland Browns, and he tries to decide whether he wants to put them on the team or not. These players are not introduced very well, but they are important to the story. From what is shown and explained, they are likable, but it would have been better had there been more focus on them so the audience has reason to care about the situation.

As the film picks up, it becomes really interesting. The main conflict is between the head coach and Weaver. The coach does not approve of Weaver's decision to trade the next three years of first-round draft picks for Bo Callahan. He has other ideas for how he wants the team to be run, and he wants Weaver to reconsider. There are a few tense moments between the two characters because of this.

When the time for his final decisions comes, it is surprisingly intense, and there are a few interesting twists to it that left me satisfied.

It does have its boring moments of exposition, but it is entertaining enough to warrant my recommendation for when it comes to DVD. For those who can care less about sports, it can still be interesting to see how the NFL works. Those who watch ESPN regularly will probably enjoy it more.

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" Review

The Grand Budapest Hotel

5 out of 5 stars

Rated R

Brief topless female nudity (on an older woman)

Brief depiction of oral sex

A couple scenes feature the portrait of lesbian intercourse

Moderate amount of language including F-words

A few scenes of graphic violence including a shot of cut off body parts.

Photographs of topless women in a jail cell

"The Grand Budapest Hotel" feels like it was ripped straight from the pages of a Roald Dahl book. It has a cartoony tone and off-beat characters that make it one of my favorite movies to come out this year.

The story is told to a writer (Jude Law) by the owner of a failing hotel named Zero (F. Murray Abraham). It is about how he obtained the building in the first place. He started out as a lobby boy (Tony Revolori), who was trained by a concierge with a lot of emotional baggage named M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes). 

Gustave is...ahem...close with a lot of rich old women who come through the hotel. When one of them dies, he and young Zero go to her funeral. When members of the woman's family find out that a very valuable item has been set aside for the concierge by a document she wrote, they are outraged. This starts a chain of events that leads to the imprisonment of Gustave and a wacky adventure to prove his innocence.

Even more than a quirky adventure story, this film is about a developing, loving relationship between the Gustave and Zero. There is an interesting father-son dynamic to them. When Zero first becomes the lobby boy, Gustave is a little hesitant about it. It is never said explicitly, but it seems that when Zero says he does not have a family, the concierge is more sympathetic and lets him have the job.

Writer/director Wes Anderson does a great job making the characters likable. They are not only entertaining to watch, they are relatable. There are so many details that make them seem real. This makes it easy to care about them and adds intensity to suspenseful moments.

One such character is Gustave. He has obvious flaws. He is conceited and has inappropriate relationships with rich, needy older women. However, the way he treats people, especially Zero, outweighs everything. Ralph Fiennes, who I know as Lord Voldemort, does an excellent job in his portrayal. In fact, his performance is so mesmerizing that it is impossible to look away when he is on screen.

This is the first major motion picture Tony Revolori has been in, and judging by the quality of his performance as Zero, I would not mind seeing him in more. He is a great actor who brings a sense of charming awkwardness to the character. Along with Zero's lover, Agatha (Saoirse Ronan), he seems to have been pulled from the world of "Napoleon Dynamite." 

Wes Anderson keeps the film visually appealing. The shots are often beautiful and often hilarious. A lot of the comedy comes from quick, quirky cuts that give it a cartoony feel. Several of the most funny scenes are impossible to describe why they are funny.

"Captain America: The Winter Soldier" Review

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

4.5 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13

Mild language

Blood as a result of wounds and beatings but nothing gory

Brutal action violence

One scene features someone falling in turbines from a side angle

Fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe will not be disappointed with "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." It continues the tradition of giving the audience likable characters and great action sequences that have made this franchise surpass DC comics in popularity. 

Like "Iron Man 3," this film addresses issues that came up in "The Avengers." Ever since Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans) found out that S.H.I.E.L.D. has been keeping Hydra weapons, he has had problems trusting the intelligence organization. Because he's a good soldier, he does what he is told to do, but everything raises questions.

This is especially true when he is on a mission in the beginning involving a S.H.I.E.L.D. boat being hijacked by pirates. He has a certain job to take the boat back, but he finds out that Natasha Romanov/ The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) has different orders than he does.

Meanwhile, there is corruption within S.H.I.E.L.D., and it gets taken over. Rogers and Romanov look for clues to find out what exactly is going on. 

There are also people hunting down Rogers and Romanov. One of them is a mysterious figure known only as "The Winter Soldier." It is revealed who he is, and this is an important detail to Rogers.

The action scenes are among the best to come from the Marvel franchise. There are plenty to showcase Captain America's strength. His hits are brutal, often sending people into the wall or whatever is around. Several scenes feature very fast hand-to-hand combat. Unlike other movies in which the camera shakes too quickly to see anything, the shots are focused enough for these sequences to be enjoyable.

This is thanks in part to directors Anthony and Joe Russo, who know how to properly film this. They also do a good job at keeping shots in non-action scenes interesting, which often involve mirrors and windows.

Since "The Avengers," the plots have been getting progressively more comic book-like. That is exactly how this one is. The way the characters find out what is going on with S.H.I.E.L.D. is very unrealistic, but it is exactly something one would expect coming from the pages of Marvel. Though it might be a little cheesy to some people, this is not a bad thing at all. It is a universe based on comic books, and it should have that feel.

While this movie does not focus super hard on the characters, it stays true to how they have been established throughout the previous films. Though Steve Rogers is starting to question things, he is still a goody-good who only wants to do what is right. Natasha Romanov is witty yet professional as in the other films. There is an interesting relationship that develops between the two characters.

Another hero is introduced named Sam Wilson (Anthony Mackie). He is likable enough, but he is not developed very well. He just kind of goes with everything, and the film does not give him a definite personality. Though the story would not have changed very much without him, he adds quite a bit to the action scenes with his super-cool weapon.

I would recommend seeing this in theatres. It is a very solid product from a franchise that shows no sign of slowing down.

"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. 

"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