Kevin James: Security Guard

2.5/5

Paul Blart: Mall Cop tells the story of a hypoglycemic, single parent, mall security gaurd. Paul Blart is a dedicated member of the security team at his local New Jersey mall. Shortly after training a new employee and falling for a girl who works at a kiosk in the mall, the mall is taken hostage. Instead of abandoning Amy (Jayma Mays), the object of his affection, and the mall, Paul decides to fight back.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the type of comedy I like to file under brainless humor. Don't misunderstand me, it is quite an amusing movie. However, the movie doesn't accomplish anything except setting up small jokes over and over. I have enjoyed Kevin James in nearly all of the movies which I've seen him. And Mall Cop was no different. Unfortunately for Kevin the movie and the rest of the cast can't quite seem to keep up. This isn't to say that the other talent don't provide some laughs throughout the movie, because they do, but they aren't nearly as well delivered as most of Kevin's laughs.

I understand that the focus of this movie was on Paul Blart and not on the band of thugs that take over the mall, but this group of bandits are poorly written and under played. They are appparently a team of free runners (see Free Running if you're not sure what free running is) who have joined forces to rob the mall. Thankfully for Paul they are all idiots and completely inept at doing anything aside from jumping and running.

Pros:
Kevin James' character is a delight to watch and well built up. Some creative "maneuvering" to give Kevin's character the upper hand.

Cons:
Not a strong supporting cast, not bad, just not very strong. No development of any secondary characters. A couple of unfunny repeat jokes that could have been left out and not affected anything.

Bottom Line:
A funny, light hearted movie that brings enough laughs to keep it from being just plain stupid. Kevin James is always entertaining, but the same can't be said for everyone else.

Salvation of What?

3.5/5

The post apocalyptic future for humanity foretold in the previous three Terminator movies is finally brought to life. In the latest installment we meet John Connor (Christian Bale) as a passionate and aggressive military leader of the last remaining survivors of mankind. The story revolves around John's need to save Kyle Reese and his conflict with trusting a mysterious cybernetic man named Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington).

Terminator Salvation is filled with intense action from beginning to end. McG's (Charlie's Angels, We Are Marshall) use of both steady cam and free cam was very well executed. The decision to use both methods of cinematography helped you be a participant during the action sequences and a viewer during the rest of the film. I hope that the rest of Hollywood's action directors take note of this and follow suit, because frankly I am tired of listening to dialogue while the camera has seizures.

It has been quite a long time since I watched a movie that seemed to move the action genre forward in any direction. And though Terminator doesn't accomplish anything truly revolutionary, it brings (what I feel) is a fresh feel to action scenes. I was amazed with a number of the action scenes. What was so new and amazing? It's actually something simple, objects have weight. This isn't anything new, but in most action movies most objects seem to have no weight to them, primarily because they are indeed made of styrofoam. This was achieved in two different ways. The main reason were the sound effects. They were intense. When there was an explosion, you felt it. When something crashed to the ground, it shook. The other thing that really helped was the camera work. Whenever something would indeed rock your vision, the camera shake was noticeable enough without becoming the focus.

Though the previous two things were great, it wasn't all... None of the characters were developed at all. We didn't really get to know anyone at all. All of us that had watched the previous movies knew John Connor, but even his character wasn't really explored thoroughly. One of the worst examples of this was Bryce Dallas Howard's character, Kate Connor. Unless you read the credits it would only be an assumption that she was his wife, because they never explored that at all (or that fact that she was apparently pregnant with his child). Then there were the multinational leaders of the world's military. Who gave them the positions they had? Because apparently they didn't even have enough clout to convince anyone in the movie that they had any authority...

Pros:
Excellent cinematography, mixing free cam and steady cam effectively (especially the helicopter crash in the beginning).

Cons:
No character development. Some special effects aren't that great. Spoiler (highlight to view): Arnold's digitally created face was quite... terrifying.

Bottom Line:
A well shot action movie with little to no character depth. Filled with intense and gritty action scenes from beginning to end. Hopefully the next movie about John and Kate's child (just a guess) will have better character development and still maintain the same intensity in all of it's action sequences.

Still Lost...

Warning this entry contains Spoilers. This is not a review, it is rather simply my attempts to reason at what I've just witnessed.

After 5 seasons, we're all still Lost... Last night's episode, "The Incident", was full of some interesting new revelations. Although, revelations might be too strong a word for it, maybe simply new information might be more accurate.

Beginning with a scene of two men, one of whom we find out is Jacob, both witnessing an older ship off shore (possibly the Black Rock). Then we also see the full statue, which to this point we had only seen it's foot. Jacob, like Richard, doesn't appear to age. Throughout the episode we witness him traveling to quite a number of time periods. Including Kate and Sawyer's childhood and the not so distant past with Hurley the day before returning to the island, among others. One must wonder if Jacob was aware of the events that were to pan out some 30 years later when he visited Kate and Sawyer or if he had actually managed to either A.) time travel to visit them or B.) shift through space and manifest himself there, while not actually being there "permanently". Without knowing exactly what Jacob is will leave these questions unanswered.

Jay Glatfelter had some interesting insight into who Jacob and his partner are here:

We open to a scene introducing the simple life with Jacob. We are also introduced to what seems to be an adversary/friend. He remains nameless but the striking divide between the two is one is wearing white (Jacob) the other black (Anti-Jacob?).

I am already getting theories that this Anti-Jacob is named Esau after the Genesis tale of Jacob and his brother Esau (Ee-Saw). It is a tale of the elder son Esau starving, selling his birthrights to his younger twin brother Jacob for a bowl of red lentil soup. Jacob also tricks his father Isaac (son of Abraham the founding patriarch to the Jew's, Christians, Muslims, and founder of monotheism) to give his deathbed blessing to Jacob instead of Esau. Esau told Jacob that he wanted to kill him, for what he did. Jacob went on to be renamed Israel by God and founded the Israelites tribe. Esau formed his own tribe of people the Edomites, they became associated with Romans/Europe by Jewish history.

So is Esau (I'm going to call the Anti-Jacob Esau this just because its nice to give him a name) evil? This episode pegged Jacob as the "Good Guy." I'm just not sure. The "good guy-bad guy" lines have been thrown so many ways. I'm just not sure who to trust. Also, we found out that the self-assured re-born Locke doesn't seem to be re-born at all.

On the note of time travel, if the prevailing theory coming into this episode regarding time travel is true (as I believe it is), then nothing that the Losties do will change anything. Unless all of the theories that the Lost writers have composed regarding the time space continuum were just theoretical mumbo-jumbo, if the bomb were to go off they would all just die... That be it. Buh-bye. At least according the the preeminent theory held by many that it is impossible to change the past because you are merely arriving at a point in time that you "already arrived at", just not as your present self... At that point it was actually your future self. Now that you're there as your present self you can only do what you already did. This seems quite complex, but really isn't. There is only one contingent. The understanding that there is only ONE present. If there is only one present, then nothing in the past can change because it has all already happened. When you take your present self back in time when you arrive there you are not changing history, you are setting history up for what already happened. As Mile's said, "You just haven't experienced it yet."

If, as we are to believe, Juliet has detonated the bomb then all of their present time characters would simply die. They would not revert to their past selves, they would simply be dead. However, I'm not sure that Juliet has actually detonated the bomb. I think that the electromagnetic energy was released and much like we saw during season 3 when the hatch "blew up" there was a release of energy that caused penetrating light and sound. I am uncertain what happens if this energy is released. If you remember, Desmond was in the same spot as Juliet is (more or less) and all it did to him was blow his clothes off and give him the ability to see Charlie's inevitable death (in several different scenarios).

There are still quite a number of unanswered questions. Here are a couple that I have.

1. Did the explosion at the end of the episode destroy the statue and the island's inhabitants?
2. Is "Esau" manifesting himself as Locke to convince Ben to kill Jacob? (As well as all the other manifestations of dead people we have seen....)
3. Who was Jacob refering to when he said, "They're coming"?
   
4. Who really is Jacob? And what's up with Richard? (I know, still, right?)
5. What's up with all the Egyptian references?
   
6. Was Daniel's first or second theory on time travel correct?

Lost Season Finale Sneak Peeks!

The Season Finale for Lost airs this Wednesday at 9PM on ABC. Here are a couple of clips to get you all excited.

The Final Frontier

4.5/5

What J.J. Abrams has accomplished in his big screen prequel to the series Gene Roddenberry created is a very rare thing. He has successfully brought to life a film that is both faithful to it's origins and accessible to those not invested in the series steep history.

The entire cast and crews' dedication to bringing this world to life is evident from the opening scenes until the final moments of the film. Every character is portrayed faithfully while at the same time feeling fresh and new.

The focus of this film revolves around two different characters, both of whom are main characters in their own right. James Kirk (Chris Pine) a brilliant yet pompous and rebellious son of a star ship captain and Spock (Zachary Quinto) a half human, half vulcan who feels much internal conflict as he struggles to find a true identity. Just like nearly every character in the film, these two actors bring their own style to these classic characters and still manage to stay very grounded in the roots of who Captain Kirk and Spock were in the original series. All of the supporting cast were wonderfully chosen for each of their specific roles. The prosthetics, makeup and costume design were all executed with precision, which helped minimized some of the strange moments movies can have with alien races (although the annoying 20 somethings sitting behind me thought every non-human was quite amusing).

Not knowing what the story was going to be I must admit I was expecting more cameos. This was only mildly disappointing. Although, having Leonard Nimoy reprise his role as Spock "Prime" was delightful and very well written. Nearly all of the great catch phrases could be found throughout the movie and were wonderful to hear once again. Spoiler (Highlight to view): One of Leonard Nimoy's lines regarding a Star Trekism was particularly wonderful, "I would salute you in our customary manor, but oddly it would seem self serving." Which was said in reference to the Vulcan salutation, "Live long and prosper."

Although so much was done right in this movie, there were a couple of things that frustrated me. Primarily, some of the camera and lighting work. Movies, especially action movies, have moved away from steady cams to free cam filming. This method of filming isn't normally very noticeable and serves as a method to make the movie seem more "natural" (apparently we're all bobble-heads). However, for several of the actions sequences in Star Trek it felt as though the camera was being held by an overly caffeinated teen. This was tolerable, but what was not were the constant len's flares. During quite a large number of scenes there were so many lens flares that it became very, very distracting. Instead of drawing me in and giving a heightened sense of realism (as I assume was intended), I found myself distracted by the lighting and not completely immersed in the moment.

Pros:
Excellent casting. Very well done makeup and prothsetics. Wonderfully told story. Faithful to it's origins and still very relevant.

Cons:
Some of the cinematography was frustrating. Annoying len's flares.

Bottom Line:
J.J. Abrams has done it! Bringing Star Trek to the big screen in a way that will please the faithful and still draw in those not invested in the series. The action fits well into a universe and story that are already very rich in history. The dialogue and characters are delightful in their faithfulness and originality. Chris Pine's James Tiberious Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock are wonderfully cast and soundly portrayed.

O-M-GEE

I am so pyched for these two movies and they just came out with trailers that blew my little bootie socks off! I had posted trailers for both of these before, but these new trailers are REE-DIC-U-LUS!Check em out!

Transformers

G.I. Joe

The Wolverine Story

2.5/5

I'm not sure why I allowed myself to become hyped up over yet another movie. Sometimes after I finish watching a movie that did not live up to my unrealistic expectations my judgments quickly swing in the opposite direction and I become hyper critical. I enjoyed my time watching the movie, but because of my overly heightened expectations I left with a sense of longing. There have been several movies in the past that have exceeded my expectations, but they have been few and far between.... And alas, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not one of them.

The opening credits were wonderfully stylized and edited, possibly my favorite part of the movie. The cinematography was often times very epic in scale and there were quite a number of great panning vistas that laid out the next "battlefield". However, as the movie wore on the grandiose landscapes became less of a focus and the special effects took center stage. And this was one of my first gripes, with all of the money that was spent to create this movie some of the special effects moments were very poorly executed. In one scene Wolverine is looking at his "new" claws for the first time... And though we've seen them in three other movies and already seen them in this movie, for just this scene they look terribly fake.

As an action movie I was hoping for more action. Though the action scenes are plentiful, most of them were short and didn't draw me in. Again, the opening credits had more machismo and appeal than did the rest of the movie. The choreography for the fighting was adequate at best, but especially with talent like Hugh Jackman and Ryan Reynolds both of whom have experience with fighting and action sequences I expected much more. I did find Gavin Hood's decision to do a low angle, close up of Sabretooth and/or Wolverine's claws coming out nearly every fight scene to be an interesting one. At one point I thought to myself, "Enough is enough, but then again it's still pretty cool."

The dialogue was quite well written and unlike many movies of this genre which can have lines or moments that completely remove you from the reality they are trying to create, never once did I feel detached because of the script. Many of the humorous moments were very well written and nicely tied into the different characters' personalities. Some of the earlier dialogue that both Wolverine and Wade Wilson have was clever and wonderfully delivered.

It is important to remember that this was a "Wolverine" movie, not an X-Men movie or even a "mutants" movie and because of this many of the peripheral characters suffered. It was great to see so many other characters on screen (Agent Zero, Wade Wilson, Gambit, Wraith, The Blob and others), but none other than Wolverine and Sabretooth have any depth at all. Even the attempt at giving Styker's character some depth seemed too shallow.

Whenever anything is adapted for the silver screen there is an expectation that things will change. In X-Men Origins: Wolverine the changes were plentiful. Some were quite frustrating (even for a non-diehard like myself), others were smaller and easier to overlook. The changes to the character of Deadpool was the most irritating. Ryan Reynold's character of Wade Wilson was dead on, but the story given to him and then ultimately the character of Deadpool were so far removed from the existing canon that it may have been better to have given him a different name.

Pros:
Well shot cinematography, especially earlier in the movie. Wolverine's character was very well fleshed out. The script was at times very engaging and humorous.

Cons:
Poor special effects. Adequate fight scenes. Shallow peripheral character development.

Bottom Line:
Wolverine is like three boxes of puzzles thrown together and each puzzle is missing pieces. There are elements of the movies that are enjoyable and there are other parts that are quite lacking. Unfortunately none of them seem to piece together very well. If you find yourself caring enough at the end of the film there are two post credit clips.

Wife quote:
"It was great, great, but it was really nice just for the Hugh."