The Amazing Spider-Man 2

After Spider-Man 3 was released to theaters, it was a financial success.  Big time.  Critically, though, it got hammered and rightfully so.  Too many villains, too many subplots, they cast the wrong person to be Venom, who didn't get nearly enough screen time and went out like a punk, turning Peter Parker into an emo punk, and finally: Those dance numbers.  I don't know what Sam Raimi was thinking, but those dance numbers really had no place in a Spider-Man movie.  Despite all that, it was a successful film, so it was to be expected that a fourth film would follow, and it was expected that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire would return for the next film.  Nobody would expect that Sony would reboot the live-action film series, at all.  When The Amazing Spider-Man was announced, it took people by surprise and rightly so.  Less than a decade had passed since the first Sam Raimi film was released.  Who in their right mind would risk rebooting a film franchise that was barely ten years old?  Sure enough, with a new cast and director they started over from scratch.  The Amazing Spider-Man was another origin story.  Instead of Tobey Maguire, they cast British actor, Andrew Garfield in the role of Peter Parker, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard, Denis Leary as Captain Stacy, Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May.  Surprisingly, it was fairly well received and was very successful.  So, the logical thing was to start on a sequel.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 begins with a bang as we see Spider-Man/Peter Parker(Andrew Garfield) swinging through the streets of New York City, fighting crime as he does.  Incidentally, he rescues an absent-minded employee of Oscorp, Max Dillon(Jamie Foxx), who eventually becomes obsessed with Spider-Man.  One night at Oscorp, Dillon has an accident in which he ends up in a vat full of electric eels.  Instead of dying, he absorbs electrical energy and becomes Electro.  Meanwhile, an old friend of Parker's, Harry Osborne(Dane DeHann)returns from some boarding school on the news that his father is dying due to a genetic disease, which Harry has inherited from his father.  That revelation leads Harry on a collision course with Spider-Man.

When Spider-Man 3 was released, it was derided for having too much in it, particularly in terms of villains and subplots.  The first two Sam Raimi films were successful because they had only one major villain and the movies revolved around those villains.  That was also why the first Amazing Spider-Man was successful.  One villain=more screen time for said villain.  So, story-wise, Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a little too much in it.  Again, too many subplots, and too many villains.  However, it's done in a way that's not entirely ludicrous, except maybe for Electro.  So...story-wise, Amazing Spider-Man 2 flounders a little bit.  Everything else, it seems to get right.  Let's talk about the casting.  When Andrew Garfield was first cast as Peter Parker, I was really surprised that he gave the character a less-geeky approach and made him a little more self-confident.  It makes for a much stronger character in the long run and really amplifies the character when he puts on the mask.  Brilliant casting in that department.  Emma Stone is fantastic as Gwen Stacy.  She's beautiful, intelligent and funny and is someone that Parker would love to spend the rest of his life with.  The chemistry between Garfield and Stone is outstanding and their relationship with each other is one of the best parts of the movie and really gives the movie an emotional impact.  Jamie Foxx does what he can as Max Dillon, who isn't that much of a likable character.  He's kinda creepy.  But when Dillon becomes Elector, Foxx brings his A-game and really lights up the screen....literally.  Dane DeHann is a revelation as Harry Osborne.  This is a character who's driven to desperation because of his disease and DeHann goes from someone you wouldn't mind hanging out with to someone you don't want to cross at all.  He becomes totally ruthless in his pursuit of a cure, and DeHann really gives the character surprising depth and sympathy.  The performances in this film are fantastic.

As good as the action was in the first movie, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 really turns up the heat.  The scenes where Spider-Man is swinging through the city are exhilarating.  You get a real sense of vertigo and speed when he's zipping around NYC.  Some of the fight scenes are spectacular, especially when Electro goes berserk.  His fight with Spider-Man is one of the most spectacular I've seen in a Spider-Man movie.  It's a total ride.  The music is done by Hans Zimmer and The Magnificent Six which was a band he had formed.  It gives the film a real epic scale.

Now, when I said that this film had too many villains, I'm referring to The Green Goblin and Rhino who is played by Paul Giamatti in a very limited but spectacular role that seems to set up the next film.  This movie wasn't just a journey for Peter Parker, but Harry Osborne as well and his transformation into the Goblin.  Too many, but they're independent of each other, so it isn't THAT much of a problem.  DeHann actually does a great job as the Green Goblin, but again, it's a set-up for what's to come.  There is an issue with which both fans of the comics and the movies have a problem, and that's with what happens with Gwen Stacy.  I won't spoil it here, but I will say that, because of the relationship between Parker and Stacy and the performances of the respecting actors, that it really lands an emotional sucker punch.

Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a visually spectacular film that really feels like a comic-book and that's a good thing.  The performances, especially by Garfield and Stone, really help sell the characters as people who have real problems, and the rest of the cast are fantastic as well.  Yeah, the film could have used a few less villains, but it wasn't nearly as bad as Spider-Man 3.  So, I'm looking forward to the next film.  Unfortunately we won't see The Amazing Spider-Man 3 until 2018.  Which is too bad.  These last two movies were awesome, exciting and spectacular.  I'm giving this film a solid 9/10.

Agree or Disagree?  Comment below and no web-slinging.

Robocop 1987 vs. Robocop 2014

I'm going to do something a little different here.  The majority of my reviews have basically just been one movie.  However, with the release of the 2014 remake of Robocop, I'm going to review both of them in one post and then compare the two to see how well the new film stacks up against the old one.  I know there are people who felt that it was blasphemous to remake Robocop.  Mind you, they did the same thing with Total Recall.  Both films were originally directed by Paul Verhoeven.  So....on with the show.

ROBOCOP(1987)



Robocop opens as newly transferred Alex Murphy(Peter Weller)is assigned a partner, Officer Lewis(Nancy Allen).  Their first call has them chasing down bank robbers lead by notorious cop-killer Clarence Boddicker(Kurtwood Smith)and Emil Antonowsky(Paul McCrane).  They end up at a steel mill in which Murphy attempts to arrest one of the criminals, but ends up being blown away by the gang.  The film cuts to a first-person perspective in which OCP officer, Bob Morton(Miguel Ferrer)appears at the camera.  But we soon learn that Alex Murphy has somewhat survived, but most of his body has been replaced by robotics, transforming him into Robocop.

I don't think anything really needs to be said about the story here.  It's a good story, but there's so much more to this movie than the story.  It's everything else.  Robocop has been known as one of the most as probably the most violent action film in 1987 and it shows.  It's extremely bloody.  So much so, that the MPAA threatened to give the film an X rating, because it was so violent.  Alex Murphy's attempted murder is particularly brutal.  He loses his hand first, and then his whole arm, and the criminals just empty their guns.  This was back in the day when there was no such thing as CGI blood.  It was all done with practical effects and squibs.  It was pretty spectacular.  Now, let's get to Robocop himself.  The character was designed by Rob Bottin, the man who did the visual effects for John Carpenter's The Thing.  Robocop became one of the most iconic characters in cinema.  Not just for the way he looked and moved, nor just the gun that he carried, but it was the performance of Peter Weller that really sold it.

Let's look at the cast, shall we?  This is an amazing cast.  You have Peter Weller as Alex Murphy/Robocop, who brings humanity to the machine.  And as a result we have a character that is both iconic and sympathetic.  He's fantastic.  Next, we have Nancy Allen as Officer Lewis.  Believe it or not, she's not a love interest.  Her character is a tough-as-nails cop who's more than willing to beat the crap out of a suspect if need be.  But Allen brings a sensitivity to the role which contrasts with her toughness.  Let's look at the villains:  Oh, what a rogue's gallery we have here.  At the top is Dick Jones played by Ronny Cox.  This guy is a scheming and manipulative high-ranking official at OCP.  You know this guy is totally corrupt and willing to do anything to stay on top.  Kurtwood Smith is a revelation as Clarence Boddicker.  He chews the scenery like it's nobody's business.  At times he can be pretty funny, but most of the time, the character is a complete scumbag, and yet he nearly steals the show whenever he's on the screen.  Paul McCrane plays Emil Antonowsky, Boddicker right hand man.  There's absolutely nothing likable about this guy.  McCrane is really good at playing characters you love to hate, and his character's demise is oh, so appropriate.

Action-wise, this is an amazing movie.  It's blood-spattered violence is also peppered with car chases and explosions and awesome one-liners.  The visual effects are for the most part, still pretty good.  Some of the blue-screen work is pretty obvious, by today's standards.  But the other thing that still stands out is the ED-209 robot.  Animated through stop-motion techniques this is a seriously one big bad machine.....that doesn't know how to use stairs, which is actually pretty funny.  The other thing that really stands out about this movie is the iconic score by the late Basil Poledouris.  It's one of those music scores that you would instantly recognize.  It's amazing.  Overall, this is a fantastic movie that still stands up nearly 30 years after it was released.  The film has had comics, sequels, tv series and video games, it got quite a following.  It generated controversy because it was so violent, but it also poked fun at American consumerism, as evidenced by the random commercials.  There's no other way to say it: This movie is awesome.  Despite some dated visuals, the film still gets a 10/10 from me.

ROBOCOP(2014)



RoboCop opens in the Middle East as machines and robots are patrolling the streets pacifying the local population.  Leading them is a man named Rick Mattox(Jackie Earle Haley)when they are attacked by suicide bombers.  We cut to a television program hosted by Pat Novak(Samuel L. Jackson).  Later, the film cuts to Detective Alex Murphy(Joel Kinneman)attempts to arrest a local gun and drug dealer.  The drug dealer escapes and has Murphy's car bombed at his home.  Suffering massive injuries, Murphy's wife, Clara(Abbie Cornish)allows OCP to outfit her husband with a top-of-the-line mechanical suit, while keeping Murphy's brain, lung and heart intact.  Everything else is completely mechanical, and turning Murphy into an unstoppable one-man army known as Robocop.

Okay, this new movie takes a few different turns from the original.  One: This one allows Murphy to keep his memories and emotions intact, allowing Robocop to retain his humanity.  Two: His family plays a much larger role.  While the story definitely takes a different turn, it's still about the main character who becomes the iconic character.  However, the suit was redesigned to allow for less robotic movements in this day and age, and it's black.  It's still has that helmet with the slot, however.  So, it's not entirely different.  I know people were up in arms over the whole thing, but think about it.  The old suit was appropriate for it's time, but would come off as completely clunky and ludicrous today.  So, some redesigns had to happen.  He also carries two guns, instead of one: A taser gun which looks like the original Robocop weapon, and a sub-machine gun.  Both of which come out his legs.  So, it's still good.  His bike is actually really cool, though.

Let's talk about the performances.  Overall, not bad.  Joel Kinneman was a solid choice, especially once he becomes Robocop.  Abbie Cornish is the sympathetic wife, and she's not too bad.  Michael Keaton plays the head of the OCP,  Raymond Sellers.  He's a scheming business-man.  Keaton was pretty good here, but not memorable.  Neither was Jackie Earle Haley as Mattox.  The character was nothing more than a mercenary.  Samuel L. Jackson was actually fairly entertaining as Novak.  It's pretty amusing to see Jackson with a full head of awful hair.  The real standout in this movie is Gary Oldman as Dr. Denett Norton.  He's simply fantastic and easily the most sympathetic character in the film.  With the exception of Gary Oldman, there really is no one here that stands out.  The villains are....blah.

What about the action?  It's got some pretty good action in it, but a lot of it is CGI-laden and it's painfully obvious at times.  The one thing I should mention about this new Robocop is that it is rated PG-13.  And that's where people start having problems with it.  It's slick, no doubt about it, but it's bland at the same time.  The action is nearly bloodless.  So, what about the suit?  Oddly enough, I kinda like it, it's a little more contemporary and a bit more practical than the older one.  The helmet comes down when the character needs it to, so we do get to see Murphy's face more.  But when it comes down it's not bad.  Unfortunately, they took Robocop's iconic weapon and turned it into a wimpy taser.  But he does get a second weapon though, a fully-automatic sub-machine gun, so that makes up for it.

Overall, it's not a terrible film.  It's actually surprisingly competent.  However, by making the film PG-13, they alienated many of the core audience of Robocop in order to reach the masses.  The original film was made for a specific audience, not everybody.  This new movie, while slick, lacks the soul and grit of the original.  It just doesn't come close to what the original film was.  It's still a fun ride, and Joel Kinneman isn't bad as Robocop.  Robocop(2014) gets a 7.5/10.

Now that I've covered both movies it's time to compare the two.  Both movies were controversial, albeit for different reasons.  The original Robocop was controversial for it's extreme violence and brutality.  The new movie was controversial because they redesigned the suit and made the film PG-13.  The original film had a memorable cast of characters.  The new one?  Gary Oldman....and Samuel L. Jackson's crazy hairdo.  The 1987 suit?  Silver and black, and looks more robotic with an awesome pistol.  The new one?  ALL-black and less robotic with a helmet that comes up and down and holsters two weapons.  Both win.  Overall, there's no competition here.  While the new film certainly is fun and has some good things going for it, like the new suit and Gary Oldman, the original 1987 flick is the clear winner here.  Why?  It doesn't try to be more than what it is.  It was also a statement on American capitalism and consumerism.  The new movie?  It's well-made and slick, but it's too slick and not grimy or violent enough.  This is what happens when you take an R-rated movie and make it PG-13.  If you have to choose a movie, go for the original.  It's far more honest in its intentions.  The original Robocop is a must-own film.  The new movie is a rental at best, but not nearly as bad as everyone says it is.  So there you have it.  Two reviews in one!

Comment below please........or not, if you want.

The Last Stand

When you hear somebody talk about action movie icons, I would imagine the one that really sticks out in your mind is Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This man has starred in some of the most iconic movies of all time: Conan The Barbarian, The Terminator, Commando, Predator, Total Recall, The Running Man, and Red Heat among others.  He has built a career of playing characters that are physically built and imposing and with that Austrian accent of his, he stands out amongst other actors.  The first real role that Arnold sunk his teeth into was Conan The Barbarian, but the film that really made this guy a star is The Terminator, in which he plays the titular villain, and he was incredible.  Since that film, he's had an amazing film career.  After Terminator 3, he left the film industry to become the governor of California for two terms.  After having a cameo in The Expendables, it seemed like it was about time for Schwarzenegger to enter the movie industry again.  Does he still have what it takes to carry a movie like he used to?

The Last Stand stars Arnold Schwarzenegger as a former Los Angeles tactical police officer, Ray Owens, who has decided to become the sheriff of a quiet town near the border of Mexico.  Unbeknownst to him, a Mexican cartel kingpin has escaped federal custody and is heading towards Sheriff Owens' town, and only he and a handful of deputies stand in the kingpin's way.  Okay, so the story is pretty simple, but it gets the job done.  There's really not a whole lot of character development, as this is basically a movie that eases Arnold back into the genre.  That's not to say that the acting's bad.  Not really.  We have a pretty solid cast here.  Jamie Alexander plays the feisty Sarah Torrence, a deputy of Sheriff Owens.  Rodrigo Santoro plays Torrence's ex-boyfriend, Frank Martinez.  Forrest Whitaker plays the head of an FBI tactical unit.  Eduardo Noriega is the cartel kingpin, Cortez.  Luiz Guzman is another deputy.  Some of the next ones are actually pretty good choices for their characters.  Johnny Knoxville is fantastic as the gun-loving nut, Lewis Dinkum and Peter Stormare chews the scenery like no-one else as Cortez's second-in-command, Burrell.  As much fan as it is to watch everyone else, Stormare pretty much steals the show whenever he's on screen.  He has a ton of fun with the character.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is.....Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Despite his age, he handles the action very well, and even at certain points makes light of his age.  Everyone else does a good job.

With The Last Stand being Arnold's first lead role since Terminator 3, you would expect the movie to have some action in it.  Oh, there's action in it.  It definitely earns its R-rating.  It gets pretty bloody.  Explosions, gun fights, fist fights and car chases perforate the whole movie.  It rarely slows down.
The Last Stand has the look and feel of a western.  It borrows a lot of themes from western films.  For instance, the lone sheriff taking a stand against corrupt outlaws.  That's a pretty standard trope for a western.  It feels a lot like a western despite the fact that the film was directed by Korean director, Kim Jee-Woon.  This is Kim's first American and English-speaking film, and he did a fantastic job with it.  It has a very specific feel and look to the whole thing.  It's gritty, brutal and at times, pretty funny, thanks to some of the unique characters like Dinkum.

Even today, Arnold Schwarzenegger has serious screen presence and he's still a hell of a lot of fun to watch.  That being said, there's really nothing in this movie that really screams, "Iconic!"  Aside from Schwarzenegger himself, there really isn't anything here that we haven't seen before.  But, you know what?  For a man who's film career spans more than 30 years, I think we can afford to cut him a little slack.  He's slowly but surely getting back into the genre that really made him a star.  Yeah, he's not as young as he used to be, but he can still bring it.  He's also going to be reprising the two roles that put him on the map, The Terminator and Conan.  Arnold Schwarzenegger can still draw an audience, there's no doubt about that, and honestly, The Last Stand was probably a good choice for him to ease back into the action, even if the film wasn't totally well-received by audiences.  It's still a fun film, and it's a Schwarzenegger to boot.  This one gets a 9/10.

Questions, comments?  Think I'm on right on, or did I miss the broad side of barn?

Godspeed, Robin Williams

Yesterday, it was reported that Robin Williams had passed away.  For someone who has touched so many lives in so many ways, and brought so much laughter and joy to this world, this is a tremendous loss.  I won't comment or speculate on the details or circumstances of his death.  Instead, I will be focusing on what the man gave us during such an incredible career.  For those who may not know, he guest starred on a show called Happy Days, in which he played an eccentric character named Mork, who would get his own show called Mork and Mindy.  He would then go on to play interesting and unique characters throughout his film career which includes the Genie from Disney's Aladdin, Mrs. Doubtfire, Peter Pan in Hook, and Armand Goldman from The Birdcage.  But some of his best roles came in some of his more dramatic moments which included Dead Poets Society, Hamlet, Good Will Hunting, and What Dreams May Come.  As a stand-up comedian, he was almost unrivaled.  My thoughts and prayers go out to his family, as he leaves behind a third wife and three children. 






Robin McLaurin Williams: 1951-2014

The Expendables

When you hear the term, "action movie," what actors pop into your mind?  Arnold Schwarzenegger,  Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, maybe Dolph Lundgren?  10 years ago, if you had told me that some of the biggest action stars in movie history would get together to make an epic action movie, I would've laughed at you.  In 2010, Sylvester Stallone made it happen.

The Expendables begins as a group of pirates threaten to kill hostages that they kidnapped 3 months prior.  They are soon interrupted by a group of mercenaries lead by Barney Ross(Sylvester Stallone).  Following his lead are Lee Christmas(Jason Statham), Yin Yang(Jet Li), Toll Road(Randy Couture), Hale Caesar(Terry Crews), and Gunner Jensen(Dolph Lundgren).  After the mission they are contacted by mysterious man known simply as Mr. Church(Bruce Willis) for a job in the Gulf of Mexico.

Honestly, the only reason for a story involving some of the biggest names in action movies is just to get from one action set piece to another.  Does the film deliver on the action?  Hell yes, it does.  It's brutal, bloody and constant.  It's awesome.  People are blown in half, heads blown off and stabbed to death.  It's glorious.  Big explosions, awesome stunts and big fight scenes pepper a movie that has been inspired by some of the biggest and loudest action movies of the 80s.  It's awesome stuff and what really makes it work is the cast.  There are a lot of big names here.  From Stallone to Eric Roberts, most of the big action stars of the 80s and 90s make an appearance.  We even have a small cameo from Arnold Schwarzenegger(who was still governor at the time)in a scene which brings the three biggest action stars together for the first time, ever.  It's short but it's awesome.  Again what makes a movie like this work is the chemistry between the characters and it's often times pretty funny.  The banter between Statham's character and Stallone's is one of the highlights.  These are the good guys.  For the bad guys, we have Eric Roberts, Dolph Lundgren(he switches sides for a bit)"Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and Gary Daniels.  I would consider Eric Roberts the LESS talented sibling of Julia Roberts, but when given the right material, he's fantastic, and he makes a great bad guy.  Dolph Lundgren:  This guy is pretty awesome in his own right.  He plays a great psycho and he really has fun with it.

Some of the best scenes are when Statham and Stallone escape the fictional island that they're on only to return and blow the living hell out of the dock.  Awesome.  Then we have a fight scene between Lundgren's character and Jet Li's character which was pretty good.  Then there's the last battle in front of the palace which is the biggest and loudest action scene in the movie and it doesn't disappoint.

That's what worked.  Here's what didn't:  The camerawork.  Good lord.  The amount of close-ups during some of the fight scenes kind of made it hard to see what was going on, and as a result there's a great deal of "shaky-cam" going on, and it just confuses people.  That kind of camerawork doesn't really belong in an action movie like this.  I didn't think it worked in the Bourne movies and it doesn't work here.  I would actually like to see what's going on.  I don't know if it was a stylistic choice made by Stallone, but I don't think it really worked out as well as he'd hoped it would.  The other is, the lack of Mickey Rourke.  Instead of having him in action scenes, he's relegated to being a tatoo artist/guy who offers missions/philosopher of sorts.  He's great, but I was expecting more.  Randy Couture just simply isn't a good actor.  Example? The Scorpion King 2.  As an ex-UFC champion, he's definitely got moves, but he just doesn't have the charisma to stand out from everybody else.  I was also expecting a little bit more screen time from Gary Daniels, who is an excellent martial artist in his own right, but he's not really as well known as the other guys.

The Expendables also had some serious competition back in 2010, namely a movie called Machete, which boasted an incredible cast of its own.  Not only that, there was a question of whether or not Stallone could hold his own in action movies today?  I can tell that after seeing movies like Rambo(the fourth movie) and Rocky Balboa, the answer is yes.  The man is in amazing shape for his age.  He's built like a tank.  So, yeah, he can still handle himself.  The Expendables was clearly successful as it got not just one, but TWO sequels.  Expendables 2 was released back in 2012, and Expendables 3 is due to be released in the next month or two.  So there IS an audience for movies of this magnitude and I'm part of that audience.  For the stuff that this movie didn't get right, it's got everything else going for it, which is more than the sum of its parts.  Overall, it's a pretty damned good action movie with big explosions.  I just wish they could have tightened up the camerawork a little bit better.  Overall, though, the film gets a 8.5/10 from me.  Recommended.

Any questions, thoughts?  Anything?  Do you agree or think I'm totally off my rocker?  Please leave comments below.

The Passion of the Christ

This is going to be difficult to do without getting preachy or arguing over which aspects of history are true.  Everyone already knows that historically speaking, Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.  He was born in 4-3 BC and lived until 30-33 AD at the time of his crucifixion.  Jesus was one of the most important historical figures ever to live.  Why?  Because of what he brought to the world: Compassion.  Forgiveness.  Love.  Not necessarily religion, but how we should treat ourselves and each other.  So, I'm not going to get into which aspects of his life are true or not.  I'll leave that for everyone else to decide.  There have been a number of movies based on Jesus Christ.  From the original King of Kings in 1927 to Son of God here in 2014.  But one of the most controversial films about the historical figure was released in 2004.  Directed by Mel Gibson, The Passion of the Christ was released to mixed reviews and controversy.

The film opens in the middle of a garden with Jesus(Jim Caviezel)praying to God for guidance, all the while his friends have dozed off and Satan(Rosalinda Celentano) is nearby trying to tempt Jesus.  Meanwhile, one of Jesus' flock, Judas, has betrayed him to the Jewish authority who eventually arrest him violently.  At this point, everybody knows what happens from here.  He gets brutally tortured and beaten almost to death by the Romans. 

This movie is violent.  VERY violent.  A lot of that violence happens when Jesus is being scourged and beaten with sticks.  It's very graphic, but it's also very powerful.  It's powerful, because even though the man is being put through the worst kind of pain, he doesn't lose his faith in God or his friends and family.  I think because of that, he was able to survive that for as long as he did, where the average person couldn't.  Throughout his punishment, you get to see the people who he's affected, both while being punished and through flashbacks, especially his mother, Mary(Maia Morgenstern).  This gives us a glimpse into his life as a simple carpenter before he becomes the teacher that he's known to be.

One of the things that's unique about this film is that all the dialogue in the movie is spoken in Aramaic, Latin, or Hebrew.  That would've amounted to quite a challenge for many of the actors including Jim Caviezel.  Speaking of Jim Caviezel, his performance is off the charts.  He's not over the top, but rather humble and soft-spoken.  His performance has been universally acclaimed, as one of the best portrayals of Jesus Christ.  Everyone else does a fantastic as well.  Mel Gibson really brought out the best in everyone involved.

I'm going to address some of the controversies surrounding the film.  Some critics have, unfairly, labeled The Passion of the Christ as anti-Semitic.  That has no basis in fact.  If you actually read the stories, Jesus was persecuted by the Sanhedrin, a Jewish judicial body, not all the Jews.  That's pretty much fact.  The other is the level of violence in the film.  As I said before, this really is a violent movie.  But Mel Gibson wanted to show how it all went down, and it really does no good to sugarcoat the brutality.  However, Mel Gibson later re-edited the film for a re-release to cut out some of the more extreme violence so that the film could be shown to a wider audience.

This movie packs an emotional wallop.  It really does.  Because of the performances involved, it really does help you get behind Jesus as a man and teacher, and his persecution and beatings are particularly difficult to watch.  This is NOT an entertaining movie, but rather, a glimpse into the final hours of his life.  I think even if you aren't a Christian or a believer of some sort, you can still get something out of the movie.  I'm not going to get into certain aspects of Jesus' life that don't make sense to me.  And I'm not necessarily a believer, but I'd rather focus on the positive messages he was trying to send the world, which these days seem to have gotten lost.  But that's a topic for a different day.  For now, I highly recommend that everyone watch The Passion of the Christ at least once.  It's a powerhouse of film held high with great performances and amazing direction by Mel Gibson.  This one gets a 10/10.

Noah

Over the past several decades we have seen many movies based on stories from the Bible.  Hence the term: Biblical Epic.  Movies like King of Kings, King David, Samson and Delilah, The Ten Commandments, and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.  In December of 2014, Exodus: Gods and Kings will be released to theaters, starring Christian Bale.  Earlier this year, one of the most famous stories of The Old Testament was released to theaters: Noah.  Directed by Darren Aronofsky, Noah is a thrilling and action-packed story with emotional impact.  This is not the Sunday School version of Noah's Ark.

The film opens on a young Noah, participating in a ritual that has his father passing to him the snakeskin from the serpent of the Garden of Eden, when they are interrupted by a young Tubal-cain wanting to turn the hill their sitting on into a mine.  Tubal-cain kills Noah's father and Noah runs off.  Years later, we see Noah(Russell Crowe)as an adult when he catches his son Ham taking a flower from the ground and Noah tells him to take only what they need and God will provide the rest.  Suddenly a single raindrop falls and a flower instantly grows in its place.  Noah see this and takes his family away.  After saving a scaly creature from a group of poachers, Noah returns home.  During the night, he has a horrible nightmare where he is submerged in water and there are human bodies all around.  When he wakes up, he takes his other son, Shem, with him to see Noah's grandfather, Methuselah(Anthony Hopkins).  Noah realizes that the vision he received was a warning from God, that the world would be destroyed by a massive flood because of mankind's wickedness, and Noah must build a vessel to save God's creatures.  Two of every species, to be exact.

Okay, so everybody knows the story of Noah's Ark and how it ends.  It is one of the most famous Biblical stories ever told.  Let's face it:  This is the Old Testament, so God was a bit of a dick.  Every time someone pissed Him off, he would kill them, in various and unpleasant ways.  Noah's flood?  He went kind of overboard with that one.  But it still makes for good reading.  Anyway, how is the film?  Excellent.  Visually, this movie is spectacular in so many ways.  One: Many of the exterior shots were filmed in Iceland.  If you ever want to make a dark, bleak and beautiful film, do it in Iceland.  The terrain there is astounding.  It's vast, it's bleak and it's some of the most unique and beautiful terrain in the world.  The visual effects are incredible as they are done by legendary Industrial Light and Magic.  They have created a world that is both stunning and terrifying at the same time.  Performance-wise?  Solid marks all across the board, with Russell Crowe taking the lead as Noah.  He really sells it as not just a man who wants to save what he can of Creation, but he has to hold on to his family as well and he's willing to kill people to uphold his duty to God.  Ray Winstone is the other stand-out as the king Tubal-cain.  This is a character who is willing to do whatever he can to get whatever he wants.  There's an interesting dynamic here between Noah and Tubal-cain.  Both are descendants of the children of Adam and Eve.  Noah: The descendant of Seth, the third child after Abel was murdered by Cain.  Tubal-Cain:The last descendent of Cain.  The reason I say there's an interesting dynamic, is that Tubal-cain wants to save his people, which seems reasonable, while Noah is more than willing to let millions of people, innocent or otherwise, die to save Creation.  So the question here is: Who actually is the real bad guy here?  Both have reasonable intentions, but their methods are very, VERY different.  Yeah, Tubal-cain isn't exactly a good guy, but he doesn't strike me as completely evil, despite his lineage.

How's the action?  It's pretty good.  Russell Crowe's character definitely means business, but the two big selling points of the film are the battle for the ark, which involves fallen angels encased in stone known as the Watchers, and Tubal-Cain's army.  That's pretty damned spectacular.  The other selling point is the Flood.  This is a story about Noah's Ark, so leaving out The Flood would've been.....unwise.  The folks at ILM have done an exceptional job here.  I will warn you, there is some disturbing stuff in here, especially when the flood hits.  I'm honestly surprised this movie managed to get away with a PG-13 rating given how graphic the violence is.  I mean, it gets brutal at times.  Remember when I said this isn't your Sunday School version of the story?  I meant it.  But it is absolutely thrilling to see all the animals arrive and board the ark, and seeing the Watchers take on Tubal-cain's horde.  It does kind of look like something out of The Hobbit, but these Watchers were in the Bible.  I would have to say, that this is a pretty faithful adaptation of the story.  While I'm pretty sure that the Bible left out the epic battles, I would have to say that the movie is pretty accurate.  With the incredible performances by Russell Crowe and company, this is a film that is both exciting and emotional.  It stays with you long after the credits roll.  The underlying themes of the original story which include obedience to God, mercy, justice, faith and redemption, really give this movie a very solid and satisfying emotional punch.

Are there any negatives?  Not really.  This film is about as solid as they come.  There's obvious controversies surrounding the fact that there seem to be too many white people in the movie given the story's timeline.  That's nitpicking at best.  Darren Aranofsky has crafted an incredible epic that I think will have a lasting impact on audiences.  If you see just ONE Biblical Epic movie this year, make it Noah.  I give this one a 9.5/10.  HIGHLY recommended.