Titans Come Roaring Back

A fresh set of faces, [slightly] better writing and quality effects helps Wrath of the Titans overcome it's dismal beginnings.

SPOILER ALERT! This post assumes you have scene this movie as we freely discuss the film's plot, developments and effects. You have been warned, mortal.

ON CONTINUITY:

ARTH VADER (AV): Well I'm happy to say that this movie, while not the best in its category, is a far more compelling experience over the first film, Clash of the Titans. While a bit devoid of depth and substance, this movie set out to further the trials and hardships of hero Perseus (played by hunky Sam Worthington) as he embarks on a quest that leads to a showdown between Kronos and the Gods. I don't know my Greek mythology well enough to know how this syncs with actual myth but I do know I generally liked it. Though I found his widower status a bit odd since his wife was in essence a mystical being, clearly she was an unnecessary carryover from the first film. Pontificator, what were your thoughts on this movie's continuity?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Greek Mythology has some very stable elements to it that any story can be crafted from Vader. The best ones are those that consume our imagination with familiar elements that we recognize...and show us something new. This film is a continuation of the first and although it is a shining example of using the mythology to craft something new, it sticks with the continuity created by the fist film and expands this new corner of the vast world supported by these myths.

CASTING AND DIRECTING:

AV: Most of the big names returned for another dose in Wrath. The most notable addition was the lovely Rosamund Pike as Andromeda, though I must say, I didn't really understand her role int he story, Ponty. I got she was a warrior Queen leading a legion of soldiers in a battle against the Pissed-off Titans but I was OK without the lack of background. She stepped up being a new, flirty love-interest and I was good.

TP: There were no Oscar performances here, but there was excellent direction as the film flowed through each sequence and the choice of cast, some returning from the first film, were all great choices for the product presented. Sam Worthington convinced me that Perseus was a real person and you can never go wrong with veteran actors Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. Bill Nighy and Danny Huston are also old hands at delivering quality making it easy for Edgar Ramirez to play off them and opening the door wide for the comic relief of Toby Kebbell.

AV: As for the direction, good stuff here. I firmly believe that as more movies embrace 3D technology, more of them will use it wisely. This movie did a masterful job of displaying a sense of depth and scale that was both impressive and added to the story's scope, believability and story. This is why we go to movies. To see what we just can't get at home, no matter how big our flat screens get.

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

TP: The special effects in this film were awesome. For a movie laden with creatures of all types and dependent upon the believability of the unique interactions those creatures have with everyone else on screen, the effects delivered. There were so many areas that this film could have gone wrong...but it delivered the goods regardless of the complexity of the sequence. What do you think Vader?

AV: A shiny gold star here, Pontificator! The effects shots in this movie were paced and presented really well! Lot's of cool, multi-headed beasts, giant earth-shaking volcanic explosions and the amazing power of the Gods when they retaliate against said adversaries–is all just gorgeous. From the giant interlocking walls of the Titan's crypt to the explosive volcanic climatic battle between the Gods and Kronos, the viewer is treated to a sate-of-the-art effects experience that really puts me on the back a Pegasus himself! My favorite scene is in Hades' realm where Zeus is shackled and is having his power siphoned off to empower Kronos (king of the Bad dudes and God of ultimate naughtiness or something)!  The sheer size of the environment and of Kronos himself defies true description. Suffice it to say, you will be awestruck.

TP: I must say, this was the first film I’ve seen that delivered the 3D goods... and kept delivering well into the film. I made a mental note of this in the theater when I caught myself flinching because the action was in-my-face as it jumped off the screen and into my lap! The closest I’ve seen thus far to the kind of quality that can be found at Walt Disney World... but for a lot less!

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: Not sure on this one, Ponty. I don't know if there is much to go deep with here. Perseus is continuously denying his heritage as a Godling and his unbelievable protesting, especially to his daddy, the almighty Zeus is more than a little annoying. He should have overcome much of this in his firs Kracken-busting adventure. I neither believe in nor do I care for Perseus' reluctance. They are short-sighted, shallow and unbelievable (remember, this is guy that rides a flying horse). For me, it kind of takes the wind out of the sails for the character. What's more a lot has been 'taken off the table' by this film's end. No more Gods? No more Hades? Zeus and Poseidon are dead? Really? Kind of hard to conceive of–given the context. What did you think, Pontificator?

TP: It was all here, although not in equal parts. There was plenty of action, a bit of comedy and even a little drama, especially when it came to the feelings Perseus conveyed for the safety and love of his son. The constant denial of his heritage wasn’t a problem for me Vader as it struck me as sensible considering he just wanted to live a normal life with his son...and the more he wanted it, the less likely it seemed that it would come true. This is also the reason I didn’t have an issue with the resolution of the end of the Gods since it means that the life Perseus longs for is ever closer to becoming real. My only gripe is one of the same I had with the first film and it’s that Perseus never comes off as a seriously skilled fighter ala “300” or “Troy” and anyone that’s a half-god charged with saving the world should be... in my opinion.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: I smell a trilogy coming, Ponty! As this film is undeniably better than the first, I can't imagine that this movie re-upped with so much A-List Hollywood talent to stop at two. There is too much money to be made and I think we've only scratched the surface of the possibilities. While dead and diluted Gods will a be hard story to further, the end-scene where Perseus hands his mystic sword over to his son is a telling tale of things that might be. Though the storytellers in the Titans are running out of mythological beings pretty quickly, there is plenty of life, if they so chose, in the story. I think a third 'Titans' flick is not only doable but inevitable. After all, it only took them 20 months to knock this one out. 

TP: Well Vader, I would be perfectly happy if they didn’t make another film since this one ended very neatly, although the door was slightly ajar for another installment. The real question is with this film being so much better than the first, where do you go from here? With no Gods and nearly every mythological creature already met, where is the upside? I fear a third installment will fall flat and give this possible trilogy a bad taste with only one of the three films being worth watching. Only the future knows for sure.

ARTH VADER Rates Wrath of The Titans: With a slightly better story, much more impressive effects and strong box office performance, Wrath of the Titans equals a good empty-headed time at the movies. If you don't look too deep for meaningful content, you'll be pleasantly surprised–which is more than I can say for the first Titans flick. All given, I found Wrath of the Titans (barely) deserving of seven busted blocks, as the mechanical owl flies.

THE PONTIFICATOR Wrath of the Titans: I really enjoyed this film as it didn’t require me to study, analyze or contemplate in the least. All I had to do was sit back, eat my popcorn and enjoy the ride...and I enjoyed it immensely. The story flowed and seemed to race against itself keeping me engaged while the effects were stunning enough to make me notice I had been stunned. Although still somewhat struggling to reach mythological proportions, it managed to bludgeon  seven blocks.

Wrath of the Titans: 7/10 Busted Blocks

Hunger Games Eating the Box Office

One of the year's most anticipated movies delivers controversial material served with a full menu of great performances. 

ON CONTINUITY 

ARTH VADER (AV): This one was an odd one for me, Pontificator. While two of my teenagers and my girlfriend (along with countless legions of understandably loyal fans) raved about this movie adaptation of TV writer-turned-novelist Suzanne Collin's famed series of arena-of-teenage-death, I come from the unfortunate perspective of having not read this great series. Therefore my comments here (on Continuity) will be limited. Suffice it to say that I understand this movie did the book justice, but even at a run-time of better than 2 hours, the all-too-familiar "the book was better" comment comes into play. Yet, with a $78 million dollar opening weekend, this movie is definitely resonating with audiences and fans the world over!

THe PONTIFICATOR (TP): Indeed Vader... it resonated with me as well, but in a disturbing way. The movie stayed very close to the book except for a couple of minor changes that didn’t degrade the movie or detract from the enjoyment of the book. In the book, Katniss had more trouble finding water than she did in the film, and Haymitch was drunk a lot more instead of sobering up as he did. Minor changes, not a huge departure, kept this film very much in line with the original source material. 

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING

AV: The beautiful and super-talented, Jennifer Lawrence (known to some for her portrayal of Mystique in last year's surprisingly well-done X-Men:First Class) stole the show. Lawrence's portrayal of the reluctant heroine Katniss Everdeen was near-flawless. If anything, the film's pacing did not give us apt opportunity to truly take in her performance. I was (pleasantly) stunned by the array of A-List talent this movie tossed at us including Donald Sutherland, Lenny Kravitz and Woody Harrelson. Award-winning director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Big, Tales of Desperaux) who displayed some funky experimental camera work that I was NOT a big fan of. That aside I gotta say, it's hard not to be star struck with Hunger Games. How say you, Ponitifcator?

TP: A very well directed film with excellent acting by all the cast members. It doesn’t take super big names in lead roles to make a great film, just actors dedicated to bringing out their best performance. Jennifer Lawrence gives a superb performance as Katniss Everdeen and the awkward chemistry between her and Peeta Mallark (Josh Hutcherson) only elevates their delivery. Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci deliver as expected of two very established and respected masters of their craft.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: While I truly cherished this movie (mostly), special effects were not really a big component. The few effects that were worth mentioning were well handled. The chariot-of-fire and the ceremony in the city were both quite impressive. While the grander views of the city were distinctly unimpressive, the effects were all a general order of good. The pacing of this movie was off for me, Pontificator. There were points I felt the film dragged while others moved at a blistering, action-movie pace, though overall, pacing was up-tempo.

TP: There were more special effects in this film than I expected, and they were all done very well. I was sold on the world that was presented as evidenced by my lingering reaction to this film. Most of the CGI didn’t appear obvious, but I found one part to be...and I believe it was by design given the nature of what was happening. The rest of it was just like getting a glimpse of the not-so-distant future technology. 

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

 AV: I am going to share something about this movie that I find deeply troubling, Ponty. Not since Lord of the Flies has there been such a disturbingly blatant storyline of children killing children. This story harbors the influence of a number of additional literary references, all equally repulsive. The classic American short story "The Most Dangerous Game" is the tale of blood-thirsty hunter tired of killing animal for sport so he resorts to man beings. This is the binary premise behind Hunger Games and it is ugly. The story shares a dystopian perspective that is built around a society that watches this horrific bloodshed of child-on-child aggression as a reality TV show. Why there is NO public outcry over this is so far beyond me—and the insanity behind this show being a reality TV show, mind boggling. Furthermore, the infuriating realization that those controlling the game could force desired events in the arena was somehow very uncomfortable to me as it further illustrated the preposterous nature of this "tournament." As a father with children, I can promise you, 12-year-olds have NO chance against 18-year-olds. Ridiculous.

TP: The deeper look I took didn’t have anything to do with how much comedy, drama or action there was in this film...although there was much of the latter, and a sparse bit of the former. The look I took was into the society we live in today and how it’s just a stone’s throw from the world of “Hunger Games.” Classism isn’t new and is becoming an extreme issue when thinking about the recent Occupy Movement. I was struck by the underlying apathy and decadence in the film of a society that takes pleasure and makes sport of the death of children. How far away are we from such a society should violence flourish as a last expression of the downtrodden and ultimate power is then usurped by the privileged among us? This wasn’t a horror film, but the underlying profound presentation of our flawed humanity certainly scared me.

ARTH VADER'S SPECIAL HUNGER GAMES RANT: I don't want to go too far off the deep end with this but the disturbing premise of this movie really is sickening. I realize our little fun Fanboy blog may not be the place to wax outrageous, but I will say of all the movies that have gotten flack in our specified genre here at the Boxed Office, this movie is the movie that gets a pass by the public at large? I guess if our society can stomach movies about Human Centipedes or maniacs disemboweling young people, then I guess this is where that road leads. In truth I applaud Ms. Collins for taking this reality TV show to the zenith–this is, in sorts, a cautionary tale of what course we are on as a culture if present trends continue. As ever, the human condition baffles me, and I am saddened by the public acceptance of this movie's topic, if not the movie itself. END RANT

TP: I fully agree with this rant. 

ON SEQUELS

AV: Any book that does this well–this fast–and generates the kind of media buzz this movie has, will be a franchise jackpot. This is just the beginning. With two other books (Mockingjay and Catching Fire) in the series all wildly successful, there will be no stopping this new franchise juggernaut. Evidently, I need to add this series to my already bloated MUST READ list, Ponty. I will be interested to see how this saga develops both in print and onscreen.

TP: The word is, “Catching Fire” will be released on November 22, 2013. It will be the last two novels in the trilogy rolled into one movie. Even if this film wasn’t based off of a book, I’d expect another film just because this one didn’t really bring closure and left a few doors wide open.

ARTH VADER Rates The Hunger Games: No better cast can be found for a movie in this genre. Smart, action packed, excellent film work and acting along with a highly disturbing sub-text our society, “Hunger Games” is smart, foreboding and entertaining. A disturbing look into a bloodthirsty future, “Hunger Games” is enchanting and thoughtful. In a dead run to the cornucopia, I give this movie nine disturbed busted blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR The Hunger Games: This is a superb film filled with a little bit of something for everyone. The most striking part of this movie is the impression it leaves long after the credits have stopped rolling and the theater falls silent. Anyone really paying attention to the world we live in will see so much more in this movie than just action sequences and special effects. I saw life’s ugly reflection... and it busted nine very disturbing blocks.

The Hunger Games: 9/10 Busted Blocks

Out of This World!

Earth man John Carter liberates Barsoom and shows Disney has the right stuff.

ON CONTINUITY:

Arth Vader (AV): As you may or may not be aware, I have been a fan of vintage science fiction for some time, Pontificator. It has been a secret passion of mine to see early sci-fi content brought to the big screen with a modern flare. Enter: John Carter. Disney's huge Sci-Fi gamble, pitting ex-confederate officer abdicated and forced to survive on a cruel, unforgiving Martian landscape. Reprising a remarkably well re-imagined rendition of Edgar Rice Burrough's A Princess of Mars. Though I would have much preferred the title stay true to it's original inception, Princess of Mars, this movie was a delight and I must say, being a skeptic that watches Hollywood butcher good original content, it was a delight to see something like this handled so well.

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Looks like I’m still learning new things about you Vader. The movie does a good job of sticking to the original story, as best as we can expect from Hollywood these days. Comparing the original work of “A Princess of Mars” by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the most deviation comes at the end where the movie improves from the original and steps a bit into “The Gods of Mars.” There are other details the movie changes such as the social positions of certain characters and certain events, but not to the detriment of the film.

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING:

AV: Exceptional cast here, Ponty!  A swell of veteran acting talent made this movie a joy to watch. Lynn Collins made my heart skip as Dejah Thoris and seasoned performances form the likes of Willem Dafoe, Thomas Hayden Church and Bryan Cranston lent great screen creds to an already impressive Disney release. Even the villainous Sab Than portrayed by Dominic West (300, The Wire) had a solid showing. The direction of Oscar-winner Andrew Stanton, a fellow Massachusetts native, brought Burrough's vision of a gravity-replete Mars to life.

TP: Go Mass! The direction of this movie was very focused and very well implemented. The casting was interestingly chosen, I thought, which led to great character acting. Mark Strong and Dominic West are very much at home with playing the shady villain type and bring all of that experience to their respective roles. It’s unusual to have two leading villains, but it works with these two. Taylor Kitsch brings John Carter to life as a tortured soul that has been thrust into an impossible situation that offers him another chance at happiness. Great performances by everyone involved, which is no surprise with actors like Willem Dafoe, Lynn Collins, and James Purefoy.

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

AV: Well handled here, Pontificator! While it takes a moment or two to figure out why Johnny can fly (light gravity, dense muscle and bone matter for earthlings, etc.), the light ships, the alien armies, the fantastic creatures, the dramatic fight scenes, the climatic end battles all were handled expertly as veteran ex-Pixar stand-out Stanton brought his A-game. That said, there is a particular moment I am compelled to call out.

TP: Awesome. John Carter makes more and better use of 3D than any other movie to hit theaters after Avatar. The CGI animation was excellent and seamlessly integrated itself with the awesome scenery and fantastic imagery. There wasn’t anything new here for special effects...it was just that all the stuff we’re used to seeing was simply done with a supreme level of technical skill. The adjustment scene of John’s introduction to Mars was funny and believably done...provided you suspend your higher intellect and accept Mars as it’s portrayed. You mentioned a particular moment Vader?

AV: Oh, yes. The masterfully handled morph sequence between John Carter and Matai Shang (played by John Strong) is one of the best in the history of such sequences. The deceptive nature of Shang's character is handled with such precision, using a mix of scene cutting techniques and moving camera actions, the scene is eerie in it's fluidity. Bravo. Well done, Disney.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:

AV: Be afraid, Pontificator. Be very afraid. This movie is sure to fly under the radar for most people. The name change (from John Carter of Mars to John Carter) was a bad call. John Carter of Mars would have given people a more exacting idea of the movie's meaning. This is a major misfire because when people want to plunk down their hard-earned cash for a movie they need to understand what they are paying for. Especially when the original title gave the audience exactly the info they needed. When audiences don't know what you're talking about, they tend not to respond. In today's competitive marketplace, a movie needs all the help it can get.

TP: Agreed on the title change, Vader. I look to see if a movie “has it all” in this section... and this one certainly did. I laughed out loud at times, specifically every time the Martian dog did his thing. I felt bad for John when it was evident that he suffered a great personal tragedy and he was in pain. I marveled at the action as it took me away in a flash of awe. The questions isn’t what’s right with this movie... but what’s wrong with it. As near as I can tell, the only problem I had with it was the inconsistent way his superior abilities were portrayed. I figure if you have enhanced strength and physical ability from the environment... then you have it all the time, with every movement and feat... but that’s just me.

ON SEQUELS

AV: The John Carter intellectual property is a series of imaginative adventures on Barsoom. Like Flash Gordon (Alex Raymond) or Tarzan (also from Edgar Rice Burroughs), or even the Shadow (Walter B. Gibson), their is a lot of potential here. As ever, the prospect of new additions or installments lies squarely in the realm of box-office performance which won't be helped by disastrously poor marketing decisions like calling the movie John Carter. This  is a powerfully imaginative franchise in waiting. I hope we get more than the one film…

TP: There are three books in the original Barsoom series as well as countless comic spin-offs and other media...so there is plenty of material to draw from to continue further adventures on Mars. Even if Hollywood decided to abandon all previous material (which isn’t unheard of), there is still a rich a diverse world that has been created with colorful and dynamic characters with which to craft anything a creative mind can imagine. That...and the fact that there hasn’t been any resolution to one of the antagonist in this film (uh-oh).

Arth Vader Rates John Carter: An excellent re-adaptation from superb source material and an A+ to Andrew Stanton and Disney for mounting serious courage (and financial clout) to bring a lesser known (but well-established) Sci-fi property to the modern big screen. Fun, mesmerizing and failing only in the branding, John Carter is great and with 8.5 busted blocks, I'm slipping on my 3D specs and heading for Barsoom. Pontificator, how say you?

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates John Carter: A great film, certainly worthy of the title “blockbuster” and a lot of fun to watch. The fact that it isn’t just a jumble of action sequences, but has comedy, drama... and even a Sherlock Holmesque feeling when the movie comes full circle makes it easy for this movie to bust eight and a half Martian blocks.

John Carter: 8.5/10 Busted Blocks

Spirit of Disappointment

Nicholas Cage fizzles as Marvel's original hothead in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

ON CONTINUITY:

ARTH VADER (AV): Well I must say, I might have been more excited for this film than I should have been. After the painfully poor performance of the first Ghost Rider film, I thought that perhaps things had changed since, you know, they went through the trouble of making a second movie. The first film made the viewer feel as though they were one of the condemned souls that the Ghost Rider banishes– doomed to a life of eternal suffering in the underworld. They certainly have done a good job of recreating that experience for us again. How say you, Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Well Vader, the movie doesn’t follow any set continuity although I do see elements of many different story lines that have appeared in the books. Most notably is Danny Way’s run on the book wherein Johnny Blaze learns that the spirit within is really an angel that has been driven insane. With so much material available from the books, it just baffles me why they simply don’t pick one of the better story arcs...and ride with it.

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING:

AV: I feel as though Nicholas Cage is simply NOT Johnny Blaze. For the first movie, I thought he was…uh, believable. Johnny is the tortured, reluctant human vessel for the Ghost Rider. To me, Cage feels pre-occupied, smug and indifferent, like the stuff the Rider does is okay with him. The bad-girl-gone-good love interest–played by the stunning Italian singer/actress Violante Placido–is interesting, if not easy on the eyes. But she is vapid and vacant as a butt-kicking damsel-in-distress. Talent was NOT this movie's flaw–even the addition of one of favorite actors, Idris Alba as Moreau, couldn't save this movie from itself. 

TP: I’m not sure this movie had a direction... if it did, it wasn’t anywhere I wanted to go. I found the movie to be very segmented instead of a steady flow and the constant posturing and drawn out pseudo awe the Ghost Rider was trying to command was unnecessary and annoying. Speaking of annoying, Nicholas Cage reached a new record for that in this one. The only redeeming aspect of the film for me was Idris Elba and he didn’t have a large enough role to save this movie from itself. What are your thoughts about the acting Arth?

AV: The acting...? Well, what there was of it...was ok. The weird facial expressions of Cage were laughably forced and off-putting especially since it did NOT happen in the first film. I have a suspicion that the 2013 Oscars will be passing this one over. 

SPECIAL EFFECTS:

AV: Ah, finally, a ray of hope in this dismal foray into the heart of mediocrity! I thought this movie was visually stunning.*SPOILER ALERT!* The scene where three dozens bad guys square of against Ghost Rider in what appears to be an Eastern European mining camp complete with giant Earth Movers and mining machine the size of a small town. The cool flames and burning special effects, truly made me feel as though the Ghost Rider was a preferable character to Johnny. Also, though I didn't see this movie in 3D, I could tell it was created to be a 3D experience. The final Mad-Max-like chase scene puts me in the thick of the action; fast-paced and ferocious. A great eye-candy experience, Ponty!

TP: Hmmm... it’s hard to go wrong with the effects for a film like this... especially since it was already done well in the first film, but somehow, they found a way. Don’t get me wrong, the flaming bike, flaming crane, flaming truck... all good. The 3D was severely underused, which seems to be a staple of the current films touting it. The real loss here was in the transformation from Blaze to the Rider. It was just ridiculous looking, reminiscent of the anamorphic effects used in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” The cartoonish look didn’t work for this film, especially with the subject being a spirit of vengeance.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:  

AV: While my first instinct would be 'what's the point?' this flick does offer us a flaming glimmer of hope for future installments. It's true, Ponty! Here's what I mean; as the special effects in the movie industry get better and better, we are treated to ever-more dazzling effects shots every year. Perfect for the super-hero/anti-hero genres! To me, it's as if the studio and the director completely wrote off the Johnny Blaze portion and made the story about the Ghost Rider. Can't say I loved it–or even liked it– but it was nowhere near the epic failure the first movie. At least the poster was cool. Pontificator?

TP: The deeper I look, the more I want to turn away. I don’t think I laughed once... so it failed in the comedy department. I didn’t feel a single tug of any emotion besides annoyance... so a failure in the drama department. The action made me groan, so although there was action... it too, failed. They took away almost all dialogue for the Ghost Rider reducing him to a flaming skull that just stares at you for what seems like an eternity before stealing your soul (I’m assuming). What happened to the Penance Stare? Where was his hollow and eerie voice as he metes out justice? What happened to the cool bike? It seems as though they took away all the good elements from the first film, left the bad ones in... and added worse ones for a complete mess that will only appeal to one percent of everybody that sees it.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: If nothing else, we are treated to the twist that Zarathos (the Ghost Rider's true name) is not a demon but a fallen angel. This was amplified by the effects of turning his flame from Red to Blue at the film's end. An interesting twist that could be a great story-telling vehicle in the future. For me this screams "trilogy" and could in fact be a better-than-ever third installment that could possibly even matter. A long-shot to be sure, but hey, who even knew this movie would have ever happened given the train wreck the first one was (check out our review of the dismal first Ghost Rider flick here).

TP: A trilogy...? Please, don’t. At this point, another sequel would make little sense, especially since I can see them signing Nicholas Cage on again...simply because they seem to have a knack for making bad decisions. Any future ideas flirting with the thought of another Ghost Rider film should be thinking serious reboot...with the emphasis on “serious.” The goofy, quirky, offbeat, silly feel applied to this character just doesn’t work.

ARTH VADER rates Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance: Alright, so this one's a rather forgettable jaunt through mediocrity, but still quite an improvement over the first. The much-improved effects didn't make this movie much better but, after all, it's a Marvel movie–not a thespian indulgence. While I can't say I'll be busting at the seams for a third installment that I am sure is coming, I can say it busted four solid blocks–with a vengeance.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance: A very painful movie to sit through with the high points being my large popcorn and fruit punch Icee. I’m just flabbergasted at the inability to simply improve upon a product that just needed some tweaking to be a contender... and turn it, instead, into something to be reviled... with the ability to ignite only two blocks, out of ten.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance: 3/10 Busted Blocks

Chronicle of Disbelief

The camera becomes a tool, a participant and a conduit in this tale of supernatural teenage angst.

ON CONTINUITY:

ARTH VADER (AV): Capitalizing on the current 'handi-cam cinema' trend of movies told from a personal perspective (read; the Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield and Paranormal Activity to name just a few) Chronicle inserts the viewer into the world of three regular-seeming teenagers who stumble upon and extraordinary finding that grants them undreamt of power. And as always–at a cost. This movie also trends toward the never-seems-to-get-old empowered teenage genre (read; X-MEN, Twilight and Harry Potter Movies) and we get a front row seat on the latest tale of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. Did I miss anything, Pontificator?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Nope, that just about covers it Vader. There are no continuity issues here since it’s an original film... or is it? I found myself reminded of other films such as Jumper and Push. The one word title’s aside, the film shares the idea of young people with powers, learning how to use them...and making some bad decisions along the way. Although similar, the movie does manage to separate itself enough for a unique presentation.

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING:

AV: With a cast or relative unknowns, Chronicle delivers a somewhat original story with a relatively fresh-faced cast. You know Pointy, my jury isn't in yet on thoughts on the whole handi-cam (hand-held) camera approach. It certainly worked wonders in Cloverfield, but this can also be a headache-inducing hinderance. While it frees up the actors to be more "real" I am not sure I get reality out of this effect. Lord only knows, Reality-TV is a writhing disaster that requires this in front of the camera to have little-to-know acting chops. Chronicle, though, offers a little bit more.

TP: Agreed Vader... it’s always roll of the dice to cast a movie full of unknowns... but this time it paid off. It also helped that the directing took the approach of the documentary effect validating the title of the film. Dane DeHaan was excellent and very convincing as someone that had serious social issues. Alex Russell had a more subtle role, but was very effective in being a pivotal presence as the kind of person many people know or have known while in high school. Michael B. Jordan, the most experienced of the main cast... and coming off his success in Red Tails, added flavor and injected a contrasting, but complimentary personality that offset and upgraded the other two characters.

SPECIAL EFFECTS (SFX):

AV: I don't know about this one—were there any special effects? Yeah there were a few very fast 'super-power' sequences and certainly the mysterious underground crystal scene was cool but I don't know if there was anything at home the average layperson couldn't do with a few trick and a boot-legged copy of Adobe After Effects. Outside the showdown and explosions of the big finale, this film, given it's premise, wasn't a Special Effects overload. Don't get me wrong, cool, but far from over-the-top.

TP: The special effects were good at times... and questionable at others. Perhaps I scrutinize more now than the average moviegoer because of this blog, but there were a few scenes that looked rushed to me. I was particularly annoyed when Steve Montgomery (Jordan) moved the BMW in the parking lot because it was clear the car was already poised for hoisting as evidenced from the extension of the tires in the wheel well. The car just looked completely spliced into the scene as it moved, making me groan. Other effects of telekinesis were excellent, as I expected, since the technology to simulate that power onscreen should be basic by now.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:

AV: At the core, I really liked this movie. A little cultish, more than a little predictable and chuck full of characters I really didn't care as to whether they lived or died. The acting was ... "meh". The story was OK, but there was something immersive about the whole experience. It seems as though hollywood is going through a similar awakening of this genre that occurred in the 1960's which birthed the the whole 'unlikely hero' story line with the likes of Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, The Hulk & of course, the X-Men. It will nice to see this film-making strand evolve. Super-powered teenagers are common (X-MEN, No Ordinary Family, Percy Jackson and the Olympians, and Sky High to name a few) but this had an edge. I don't want to overstate this movie, it was well done, but really offered no credible new experience. Your thoughts, Ponty?

TP: There was drama. There was humor. There was action. There was also a lot of unanswered questions which worked in the movie’s favor considering the total presentation of the film. How did they get their powers? I saw, but never really understood. What were the limits of their powers and what effect did they have on their bodies. I saw, but never really understood. This to me added a great deal to the film since it was presented from their perspective... how much would any of us really understand about that situation analyzing it with our high school minds? I think this was brilliant as it added a realism to the movie that the movies I listed as similar above, didn’t have. It also left the door wide open to a future installment that could possible answer some of these questions.

ON SEQUELS:

AV: I don't see a need for a sequel in this one, but that hasn't stopped Hollywood in the past. We really need to get Hollywood to continue to hammer out new and different story lines. That said, this was a decent effort, albeit not new. We don't need another Chronicle, though I would love to see many more solid attempts like it in this genre.

TP: Oh Vader-Nader, I see potential here. How much further will Matt’s (Russell) power grow? How will he live in a world where it may not be known where he is, but the authorities know who he is? What was it they found...and were they the only ones to find it? These questions are just the tip of the iceberg in the polar cap that could be a sequel. They can even continue that unique feel of the film... since cameras are everywhere, it would still be a “chronicle” of what happens next.

ARTH VADER Rates Chronicle: A so-so story, fresh faces and some decent, if not eye -popping SFX puts Chronicle in a good spot on the must-see list. While you don't need to view this on the big screen, it is a good time–with a few twists and some thought provoking 'what-if' scenarios. Fun, brainless and full of bland characters, this one might easily be forgotten soon, but I use my new-found powers for good and bust seven blocks for Chronicle.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Chronicle: A very interesting and engaging movie with terrific action and special effects, I felt it could have been better, but understood and appreciated what it was... and respect the seven blocks it busted.

Chronicle: 7/10 Busted Blocks

Predators Hunt For Greatness

Hunters become the hunted in the 'most dangerous game'
on a world far, far away.

ON CONTINUITY:

ARTH VADER (AV): The Predator storyline is a convoluted one at best. The original Predator (starring the Governator in 1987) was a film rich in one-liners and never-before-seen action. Since then, the series has woven it’s way into New York City subways, the Arctic and pitted itself against rival Aliens, US soldiers and even Danny Glover. This inane selection of random adversaries tells me that the Predator concept has no real grounding. It syncs up with the other well-intentioned, poorly executed Predator flicks. Yet in spite of all this, Predators has some merit. Your thoughts, Pontificator-nator?

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Well Vader, the story of the Predator began in 1987 and it was a major blockbuster. Fast forward to 2010 and it continues as the fifth Predator movie, although reportedly intended to follow Predator 2 and ignore the other two Aliens versus Predator movies. This film stays consistent with what has been revealed in the previous movies and even breaks some new ground by adding to the Predator lore with previously unknown information about the species... great stuff!

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING:

(AV): I am just blown away at the sheer depth of acting talent leveled at this movie, Ponty! I won't go down the list of A-List talent on this movie’s bill, but I will give some honorable mentions. First, Adrien Brody is the man–cool, mysterious, smart, surprisingly buff, and believably pensive. A-Dawg showed some great acting chops in some of my favorite flicks like [Peter Jackson’s] King Kong, Slice, Hollywoodland and M. Knight’s The Village. Adrien’s a great leading man. Another one of Hollywood’s uncontested talents, Laurence Fishburne, helps Predators come to life and props to Topher Grace and the stunning Alice Braga who all add serious star power to a movie I would otherwise have overlooked.

(TP): The casting was excellent. The acting was excellent. The directing was excellent. Adrien Brody, while probably a surprise to be the lead in a film like this, did a spectacular job as the tough-as-nails and cunning-as-a-fox mercenary, Royce. I was pleasantly surprised by Laurence Fishburne’s portrayal of Noland, a soldier that has survived ten seasons of the Predator’s hunting games. The disconnect happening in his mind after living through all that was masterfully played. Walter Goggins was also a surprise in a role that he doesn’t play very often...comic relief.

SPECIAL EFFECTS (SFX):

(AV): You know, Pontificator, I find the Predator to be one the most interesting–and surprisingly, one of the least explored of Sci-Fi’s onscreen adversaries. Even after however many films, I still have little real insight into the inner purpose of the Predators. The effects wizards at Troublemaker Studios and 20th Century Fox make the Predators both scary and fascinating. The Predator’s jungle-dogs are grossly compelling and the scene where they hunt down our survivors is intense. Really, I found it to be some of the best CGI I’ve seen in a while.

(TP): The special effects were great Vader, and everything I’ve come to expect from a Predator movie. Everything was believable looking... within the acceptance of believing what was going on. The CGI wasn’t shoddy and the thought of it being CGI, while watching the movie, never crossed my mind...a good sign.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK:

(TP): I’m a fan of the Predators, both onscreen and in the books... and I was very pleased with the details of this movie. More than that, I was elated to get that old feeling back that I had when I watched Predator for the first time back in ’87. Even knowing all that I know about the Predators, it was a thrill to see hapless humans trying to survive in the jungle against such a superior foe. Did I say hapless? These were some pretty mean and seasoned killers, thrown into a meat grinder of pain and death. The mix of personalities and their adjustment to their situation was well written. Your thoughts Arth?

(AV): Around halfway through, the movie’s identity is revealed. The Predators are not just the alien hunters and their whacky demon-dogs, but they’re also the Earthlings; rogue warriors from every corner of the world who prey on others. Then, in an odd twist, they also start to counter-hunt the aliens. Deep. Surprisingly, the [Alien] Predator is both friend and foe. Hollywood has done an outstanding job of allowing the viewer to discover the primal personality traits in at least one of the Aliens. That’s pretty hard to do given how much they are painted as bad guys in earlier films. What’s more, I find myself oddly compelled to learn more about these dreadlock-brandishing bad-asses. Their weapons are simultaneously brutal and high-tech and I must say, even after two decades of film appearances, I can’t say I know what they are about. Yes, they hunt other life forms for sport–but why? They are clearly training warriors for a coming conflict–but what and against whom? I really hope this gets explored in later films.
(TP): Agreed your Vaderness, the Predators themselves were a surprise as it was revealed that there are two different kinds, the difference being analogous to wolfs and dogs. Coming to Earth to hunt seems to be a preference of one clan, while abducting species from all over the universe and depositing them in the “game reserve” suits the other. Overall, an excellent approach to make old material seem brand new again.

ON SEQUELS:

(AV): * SPOILER ALERT! * You may want to skip this part of the review if you don’t want us giving the ending away, even though this movie is over a year old as of the writing of this post. This could be one of the best pseudo-cliffhanger Predator endings since the original. The clever plot detail of pulling warriors from all over the world and plunking them down on a distant planet that is clearly not Earth is not a bad storyline if handled right in future installments. Though Predators is drenched in an underwhelming storyline, when we see the next wave of parachutes dropping in to deliver “fresh meat” at the movie’s ending, I found myself saying”… wait, don’t end there!” Weird huh?

(TP): No, not weird... if you’re Arth Vader. Believe it or not, there is still room for expansion here. Predator culture and history still hasn’t been greatly explored and learning of another type of Predator in this film, coupled with the ending being simply another beginning, leaves all kinds of room for more carnage. They can even go on a limb and introduce other intelligent alien species that the Predators hunt for sport and write in that interaction with humans as they all try to survive. Even after five movies, the possibilities are still plentiful.

ARTH VADER rates Predators: Ok, while not exactly an Hugo award-winning screenplay, this movie does have its moments. Lots of momentum, cool visual effects, great (if not predictable) pacing and a cast that is as advanced as the Predator’s technology, this one’s worth a look. I admittedly did not see this on the big screen but if you need a fun, late-night sci-fi fix, you could do a lot worse than Predators. I fired up my infrared goggles and parachuted in six-and-a-half busted blocks.

THE PONTIFICATOR Rates Predators: This movie was able to bring back that old feeling of awe and tingle of the spine, and did it with the same winning formula the very first movie had including a group of proficient human killers, a jungle and even the original music. I enjoyed watching as this movie busted eight and a half hefty blocks...with a shoulder mounted plasma cannon.

Predators: 7.5/10 Busted Blocks