Reviews

I don't know if a cast of big-name actors can save the very odd re-adaptation of the classic tale 'Great Gatsby' starring Tobey Maguire, and I don't know if the beloved big-budget 'Bourne' franchise can be successfully resurrected without its lead man Matt Damon or mastermind Paul Greengrass, but I do know that 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is perfectly able to achieve greatness in either respect.

It's almost a freedom exclusive to superhero movies, that one superhero can be played by multiple actors over time, and the franchise's popularity never slumps. Fans are in love with the comic-book character first, and the actor who plays him second. Tobey Maguire's reign as Spider-Man ended 5 years ago, as did the story as we knew it, so this latest entry would best be regarded as the beginning of an entirely separate franchise. It's a do-over, a fresh start, a lapse back to the origins of Spider-Man and how Peter Parker came to be, and Andrew Garfield does great work filling the role. Calling the shots this time around is one-time film director Marc Webb, whose feature length debut, 2009's '(500) Days of Summer' may not have prepared him for blockbuster-sized action films, but made him generally well-versed in shaping characters and spinning a love story (which carries almost as much importance as the action in a movie like Spider-Man).

While this revisited chapter of the web-slinging hero touches on a lot of the same obvious plot points – a geeky teen with an elusive past constantly bullied in school, looks to take vengeance on the untimely death of his uncle, and with a chip on his shoulder and a spider bite on his neck, gains superhuman powers, bestowing upon him the charge of protecting New York City – this Spidey story delves deeper into Peter Parker's past and does a better job at explaining why things are as they are. With a new leading man, a new love interest, a new villain, and a more telling back-story, it is difficult to see it as anything but different.

Rhys Ifans (playing Dr. Curt Connors, a mad scientist turned angry mutant lizard) described this film as a more realistic (barring his character's transformation) and less fantastical depiction of the story than the other Spidey films were, and there are many examples supporting that claim. For one instance, while the spider bite gives Peter Parker superhuman strength and amazing athleticism, his web-spinning ability is the result of a special device that he invented. In the Raimi films, firing strings of webbing from his wrists is just something that Parker was suddenly able to do, without a thought or rationalization given to where it came from or how it was possible. That is not to say that it was a bad thing or that this new film is any more plausible. It was just one of the things that Webb decided was important to clear up, making his film adaptation slightly more unique.

I do prefer Webb's vision, though some scenes were still utterly cringing and corny; particularly those involving the school bully aptly named "Flash." That said, I can't help but think that these scenes were done intentionally for comedic purposes, filling the void in J.K. Simmons' absence; in which case these were necessary and effective. A hilarious and crowd-pleasing cameo by Stan Lee tops off the fun, comedic side to the story. Still, nothing in this film was nearly as peculiar or horrifyingly corny as Maguire's evil alter-ego's slick dance routine in Raimi's Spider-Man 3. That was just weird, and frankly a little embarrassing.

The remarkably talented A-list supporting cast (including Martin Sheen and Sally Field) to rising stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone gives this remake an original feel in itself. The casting, in both leading and supporting roles, was spot-on. While Garfield's youthful facial features and far leaner build may not necessarily make him the obvious choice to play the part of Spider-Man, after seeing him in action he was undoubtedly the RIGHT choice. He's natural in the part, and plays the character more loosely and freely than in the previous 3 films, which makes him come across as a more likable superhero.

Playing opposite Garfield is the beautiful and blonde Emma Stone, playing Peter Parker's rock and support system, Gwen Stacy. Stone's character is a refreshing portrayal of a strong female lead, level-headed, sturdy and able to stand on her own two feet. She can take care of herself, and does not need a man, or a hero, to whisk her away. The character strays far from Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane, a clumsier, emotionally conflicted and clichéd damsel in distress. Garfield and Stone are expectedly well-matched, becoming far more evident when their intimacy and strong on-screen chemistry had carried beyond their movie scenes and into real life, which speaks to what Ifans was saying about the authenticity of the film.

'The Amazing Spider-Man' is a great reboot for the franchise, and it is most definitely worth the cost of a ticket, even in 3-D. The film is showing 'Amazing' success at the box office, and rightfully so. A new face and a new visionary was what the studio needed to freshen up the franchise, and liven up the big-screen.

What I found most surprising was how perfect the pairing of Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum was. It was almost as unusual as the casting in The Other Guys, but this one worked a hell of a lot better. Plus, 21 Jump Street was livelier and funnier throughout, and on those merits alone deserves the 8/10 rating I have given it.

I was also really impressed with Channing Tatum and how well he handled a comedic role, considering his previous work includes Step Up, Dear John and The Vow. He was more prominent in the lead, and stood out more so than Jonah Hill, mainly because he was playing outside of the arena he is accustomed to and our expectations of him were lower, while Hill is primed and natural in this genre.

What comes as no surprise is that Hill would have something to do with a film implementing the whole high-school backdrop, allowing him to revisit past scenarios and recreate some of the fun from Superbad. It was Seth, trimmed down and perm-less, and as awkward and insecure as ever with women, still engaging in endless partying and heavy drinking all in an effort to fit in with the cool crowd. It seems a trend is developing for Hill, and it could threaten to type-cast him. He was pretty damn funny in the movie though, and rightfully earns that kind of praise.

The movie was as humorous as it was morally driven, exhibiting themes of partnership, trust and loyalty, and how defiance and betrayal can break, or threaten to break, a friendship (similar in nature to 2004′s remake of Starsky and Hutch).

21 Jump Street proves that even comedies can have underlying messages and useful lessons for kids ...violence, coarse language and intensively vulgar, inappropriately graphic, sexually explicit themes and dialogue aside.

Oh, and Johnny Depp's cameo is awesome. The way his character's reappearance was written into the story is nothing short of genius.

Jay Baruchel is seemingly very patriotic and enjoys embracing his Canadian heritage, which is often reflected in his work. In a scene in his film 'Knocked Up,' Jay's character was asked what the tattoo of the maple leaf on his chest represented. With unyielding pride, he responds, "this is a tribute to my country and my countrymen," a line which couldn't be more accurate or befitting in describing his latest screenplay and big-screen writing debut, 'Goon.'

'Goon' encapsulates heart, humour and hockey, all the major elements of a good old-fashioned Canadian-spirited movie, and like any respectable Canadian, it always remembers its "Ehs" and "Thank Yous."

Seann William Scott plays the title character well, and it would surprise me if the real Doug was not satisfied with the portrayal. But Scott does take the phrase "break a leg" much too literally, and the film's art directors don't hold back in splashing blood wherever they can.

The film makes the most out of its disclaimer warning viewers of its violent nature, which is evident from beginning to end. The film's fight scenes, particularly the final showdown, are gruesome and gory, and at times will make your face cringe and your body shiver. That is unless you have a very high threshold for pain and can stomach it when you see it being inflicted on another person, even if it is just being acted. The graphic artists are good and accentuate these scenes as much as possible.

Like the torrents of slow-motioned blood splatter, you're sure to be overwhelmed by the sexually-explicit, inappropriately rampant, definitively outlandish, unmitigated and brazen dialogue. 'Goon' puts to shame any movie that has ever been assigned an R-rating for its profanity and coarse language. That said, I do think that the dialogue will be what viewers remember most from this film. The brash and outspoken remarks from the naturally corky Baruchel are absolutely hysterical, as are the exchanges between Scott and his character's love-interest Eva, played by Alison Pill. Every movie seems to have a place for a romantic side story, even Goon, and Pill has one of the best lines in the entire movie.

It is difficult to ignore the intensely revealing graphic content, but it is impossible not to appreciate the heart of the lead character, the humour in the dialogue, and the game of hockey that is proudly Canadian.

For a summer crowded with countless superhero movies, remakes, sequels, spectacular CGI-enhanced films and great 'laugh your ass off' comedies, they saved the best for last. 'Our Idiot Brother' is a refreshingly original concept to liven up the theatre as summer sadly draws to a close. It is the type of film that we can all enjoy and cherish, and will surely win over audiences' hearts. It's cheerful and inspiring, and truly shines as a slice-of-life comedy. It tells the story of a misunderstood man trying to find a purpose to his life, and shows up at the doorsteps of each one of his sisters in search of guidance.

It has an incredible ensemble cast that play off each other extremely well, particularly the three sisters – played by Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel and Emily Mortimer – who were matched up perfectly. The cast overall was excellent, but nothing could have topped it off better than Paul Rudd, who mastered the title role as the idiot brother, Ned. Rudd is a genuinely likable actor, and it goes a long way with this movie. Ned is a fun character, brutally honest yet likable, free-spirited, completely uninhibited and without a care in the world. He lives his life the way we all only wish we could. As he comes to terms with being an adult in the real world, his stupidity is actually quite nourishing and enlightening, and you enjoy being by his side every step of the way.

'Our Idiot Brother' is admittedly funny and sad, clever and idiotic, and just plain enjoyable. It may not be a gut-splitting, keel over in uncontrollable laughter kind of comedy, but it does have a number of laugh-out-loud moments; and it certainly has an appropriate amount of light-hearted humour to satisfy the comedy junkie in all of us.

As much as it was a classic comedy, this movie also exhibited many of the fundamentals of an emotional, heart-warming drama. That's where Paul Rudd was put to good use – harnessing the balance between humour and genuine acting. The side-story of Ned (Paul Rudd) and his faithful K-9 companion, as clichéd as that may be, was a pleasant touch of realism and perceptibility. It provided additional depth to Rudd's character and to his life, which made the audience respond more positively to him.

'Our Idiot Brother' has made me an instant fan of Jesse Peretz, the film's director. It is a true example of filmmaking in its purest, most genuine form, true to the way films should be. It simply tells a story, one that combines comedy with drama, and is carried by characters who possess great on-screen chemistry.

THE GOOD The special effects were excellent. Some of the crash landings and explosions were quite spectacular, and if I didn't know any better I'd say Michael Bay had a stake in this aspect of the film's conception. Regardless, I found the design of the spacecrafts to be quite unique and creative, and different from other extraterrestrial-themed films. Oddly, they didn't seem out of place. It was somehow believable to have spacecrafts in a setting where people are typically on horseback, which I think is an interesting take and a true testament to Jon Favreau's directing style.

The spaceships initial arrival reminded me of War of the Worlds, but with a Western backdrop. That entire impression changed when the aliens operating those spacecrafts began appearing in hand-to-hand combat, and I realized that this was going to have more of a darker Alien vs. Predator kind of tone.

On the acting front, I think Olivia Wilde really stood out. She has really come into her own and I think she has amazing star power quality. At first, her character, Ella Swenson, would appear just in the background, creeping behind the shadows away from the action, and I liked that initial mystery and allure of her character. In time, she rises like a phoenix from the ashes and settles into a major role, guiding the posse through the desert in pursuit of the demons while carrying the weight of the story on her shoulders to the very end. She is the voice of reason and logic that helps the others understand the nature and presence of the extraterrestrial beings that have caused so much turmoil in their town.

The title alone implies a brand new rival, so it is safe to assume at this point that the Cowboys and the Indians have resolved their issues of the past, and the cowboys have set their sights onto bigger things. Of course, it's not a true Western unless there's a saloon and at least one bar brawl, and this film more than lives up to the cliché.

THE BAD I understand that they wanted the aliens to look as menacing and threatening as possible (imagine an alien resembling the one from Mac and Me, and then picture the complete opposite of that) and you should arrive at something fairly accurate to Hollywood's current schema of what an alien looks like. They are the villains, the antagonists, the intruders, and as long as they're invading earth, they may as well be portrayed as perpetually evil and constantly snarling, just so there is no confusion as to which side the audience should root for. Based on the title, I did not expect the aliens to be so horrifying and graphic or the fighting to be so brutal. That was obviously Jon Favreau's vision, and it's not to say that it was bad. It was just unexpected, and that's what I think its drawback was for audiences.

Daniel Craig pulled off the suave, calm and modest role very well, something he's well-versed with by now, given the roles that have made him famous. But he was not overly engaging, and kept the audience at bay for most of the film just as he had done at first with the characters riding alongside him. His dialogue is very limited, almost as short as Ford's temper. Ford's voice is a bit overdone and forceful, a lot like the effect the bat suit has on Christian Bale in The Dark Knight. I'm sorry but I'm convinced that his suit comes equipped with a voice box or something to darken the tone of the film and give it a Chris Nolan twist.

Ford's lines are delivered in a snippy, grumpy, gruff sort of way, and at certain points, (you will recognize them when you see them) the viewer can easily make the distinction between simply reading a line versus playing a part naturally and convincingly. Then again, it's difficult to blame him for his vile temper, what with the hardships of having such a nuisance for a son. His son, Percy, was likely meant to harbour a sense of comical relief, as an irresponsible, spoiled boy who talks a big game but is nothing more than a good target for physical abuse. In that case I guess he was useful in a comical sort of way, or at least as a simple means for the other characters to relieve pent up anger.

It had a decent story beyond the inevitable conflict between the cowboys and the aliens, but I don't think it was as strong as it could have been. The emotional scenes were a little weak and I did not feel entirely engrossed in them. The potential romance between Jake and Ella develops almost passively before our eyes, and for obvious reasons it does not persist.

OVERALL The old adage goes, you strike while the iron is hot. Hollywood plays off of current trends, and Cowboys and Aliens, as separate genres, have always been hot and trendy subjects on which to base movies. Based on its numbers, the poor reviews and sour word-of-mouth, somehow 'Cowboys & Aliens' didn't translate well on screen and failed to strike a chord with audiences. The genre is daring enough, merging science fiction with Western, and I would have thought that that in itself would have drawn teens and young adults to the theatre.

As is evident by its title, this was not a conventional sci-fi thriller, which is what I liked most about it. It possessed a certain historical integrity with a boost of modern sci-fi. Favreau insisted on not implementing 3-D technology into this film to maintain that true old Western purity, and I am glad he stuck to his guns. Overall, I found it to be a fun film myself, not without its flaws, but easily enjoyable if you can accept it for what it was.

I give Cowboys & Aliens a 7/10.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 marks the end of the reign of Lord Voldemort, and the end of the most successful movie franchise ever. I have to say that it was a fitting end to what has been an extremely exciting 10-year-long adventure. Although this was inevitable, and the ending was fairly predictable, even for those who had not read the book, this film was absolutely gripping, powerful and suspenseful, and characteristic of a classic "cloak-and-dagger" tale.

You want to talk about ending with a bang, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 did that in tremendous form. I have been told that in business you cannot be everything to everyone, and while this holds true in many scenarios, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows refuses to be bound by this rule. This is one of the few films that I have seen where every possible emotion one can experience is provoked at one point or another. Throughout the film, you will be happy, sad, angry, upset, confused, sad again, distraught (I heard the sobs) depressed, perplexed, and then absolutely euphoric. Daniel Radcliffe described this film in an interview as being an "intense emotional drama" and the story to be "quite a roller-coaster ride", and after having seen the film, I can vouch that it truly is one heck of an emotional roller-coaster.

Although this last film continued on with the story from the one before it, it was not absolutely necessary to have seen part 1 to understand part 2. Part 1 was all dialogue in order to set the plot for what was to come, and considering only one Horcrux was found and destroyed over the duration of the entire film, the remaining Horcruxes along with every conclusive detail were left for part 2.

The opening scenes of the final film were strictly dialogue and the story moved very slowly, taking on from the film that preceded it, but once it got back into the thick of things, it suddenly seemed to breeze by. Before long, two Horcruxes were destroyed, Voldemort had become significantly weaker, and an epic battle of good versus evil ensues at Hogwarts School. A familiar place that had at one time been considered a place of refuge, comfort and safety, I thought that it was the perfect setting for one final mystical adventure with Harry, Ron and Hermione. It's where it all began for the boy wizard and his trusted sidekicks, so it seems only fitting to have it all end there as well, and have the story come full circle.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows provided the perfect place for the proper good-bye, and I thought every aspect of this film was very well thought-out. Every scene, every character, and every event that took place had significance to how the whole story played out, so you have to really be paying attention as you watch. Everything was done appropriately and surely to every fan's complete satisfaction. As part 1 dealt mainly with Harry, Ron and Hermione's quest to uncover the story behind the deathly hallows, many of the other characters that had become staples in the franchise had been left out. But from the opening scenes of part 2 onwards, we are rightfully reacquainted with all the bright, familiar faces that we have come to love and cherish, including Ollivander.

All the characters were utilized, some more than others, and some with even bigger parts with more screen-time than they had in the past 7 films put together. Those select few characters I have alluded to become the unlikely heroes of the movie.

Just like the Sword of Gryffindor presents itself to the witch or wizard most deserving of it, the sword, along with the role of hero, went to a character very deserving of it.

This film drew applause from the audience even before the story picked up. There are many occasions when you'll be compelled to clap, not just at the end; and that's the kind of reception this film has gained. It was the perfect ending to a phenomenal story.