Reviews

Darke Reviews | Captain America:The Winter Soldier (2014)

Posted by

5

Darke Reviews – Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I promised Beth and Stef I would start off with the TL;DR on this one.

Holy Amazeballs. Yes. Go See this film. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect (but maybe spend) $200. Go see Cap. It is one of the best films to date in the Marvel cinematic universe and the best film to date this year. To be absolutely clear it is not a perfect film. There are flaws I will go into below, but it did everything I needed it to. It made me smile, made me sit on the edge of my seat, made me giddy with anticipation of something strange, made me laugh and even made me cry.

Go see it. Full price. No 3D, it isn’t needed by a long shot.

Full review time? I suppose so. Lets see if I can set a speed record on this writing.  These normally take me about 45 minutes to an hour to write because I want to choose everything I say carefully and keep the review SPOILER FREE!

Directed this time by Anthony and Joe Russo. If you’ve never heard of them that’s ok. Their biggest credit is the TV comedy Community. Seriously. These guys were given Captain America. I have absolutely no idea what Kevin Fiege and the other Marvel producers saw in them, but it worked. They got exactly what they needed from their actors and every shot. The down side is that the movie was filled with some magnificently beautiful fight sequences that I would have loved to watch. Really, I am tired of quick cuts and camera motion. What I could see of the fights was pretty amazing and painful. The movie also has some pacing issues which fall on the directors feet, as it runs a long two hours and thirty minutes and at times feels it.

The time of course is needed for the complexity of the plot. Ed Brubaker is credited with the concept and story, that was converted to screen play by Chronicles of Narnia writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.  The three of them created a Bond worthy plot within the confines of the Marvel Cinematic Bible. NOTHING in these films is done without forethought or planning. When I consider that, it tells me that parts of the plot that seemingly came out of left field were planned. It tells me they knew what they were doing and the filler was done exceedingly well. The movie runs long and a few scenes could have been cut I suppose, but I really enjoy that the writers bothered to put quiet moments. Emotional moments for the characters to let their relationships build and let you get to really know who they are in the dark. They intelligently don’t over explain when lesser writers would have spelled some things out. I applaud them for that.

Of course the writing and direction need actors. Thankfully the movie has them and for once they aren’t chewing scenery. Even Redford as Alexander Pierce comes across with a subdued yet powerful presence. Samuel L Jackson stopped being Samuel L Jackson and was Nick Fury. The limelight, however, belongs to Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson and Anthony Mackie. I’ve talked about the need for chemistry in a film before. You know when actors are not a hundred percent comfortable with each other, their roles, or  some element of the film. Here they all make it look effortless. The quiet moments have a serene and subtle quality that they need. The moments of bonding feel natural and not forced. The moments they need to be strong and dominating the screen as larger than life beings come across just as well with these actors. Each one of them has their moment in the sun and they cast a tremendous shadow when they get it.  I was really pleased with the balance of their characters through the movie in a way that surprised me.

I didn’t mention the Winter Soldier. He doesn’t get to do a lot other than kick ass. I am not saying his performance wasn’t good, but it didn’t hold the nuance the others brought.

From a technicals standpoint, the 3D is largely wasted on the fact you can’t appreciate the motion of Falcon flying due to quick cuts and massive camera movements. I swear the cameraman may have been having a grand mal seizure. This is by far the biggest flaw of the film. Everything else is on par with all we’ve been given before. This is something Marvel needs to be careful of  as the effects need to continue to advance with the years or things will look dated. The movie doesn’t suffer from that yet, but it wont be long before it could.

Overall the movie is, as I mentioned before, arguably one of the best Marvel films to date. It is up there with Avengers. It feels like a comic book movie that Captain America SHOULD be in. It feels like they should be doing this and the plots complexity fit perfectly. There’s enough references to the other Avengers in the film to make fans smile and unlike refuse like Iron Man 3 or a flawed Thor Dark World, happens quick enough and in such a way that calling in back up doesn’t feel viable.  So thats another applause there. It was enough to have who they did, doing what they did.

Of course, stay for the post credits scenes. Yes, plural. The first is more powerful, but the second has meaning.

That’s it folks. Speed record set (30 minutes). Go see Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s the Cap movie we needed and deserved.

Darke Reviews | Noah (2014)

Posted by

0

I was raised Roman Catholic, within the United States, so it goes without saying I am familiar with the story of Noah. Much like a friend of mine in Ennis, I am also a student of religion. While not as studious as I was once in my early years I am passingly familiar with more of the archaic texts and myths surrounding that particular religion. Even my middle name is based on one of these stories. So I went into Noah with a little more appreciation for what they *could* do with it. I suppose with that, I should not have been surprised with what they did do.

The movie was written by it’s director Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Black Swan, The Wrestler) and Ari Handel (The Fountain and producer on DA’s other films). This writer / director combo leads to what I am going to start calling “Cinematic Nolan Syndrome” or CNS in some. Sadly it manifests here. It presents itself as a plodding story full of self indulgence and a man behind the scenes jumping up and down, waving his arms. While jumping around like a hyperkinetic bonobo, the man is also yelling look at me!, I am an artiste! Am I not avant-garde? am I not edgy! I have an eye that no others do. I can do things with film no others do!

CNS seems to be present here. The script is painfully self righteous in its condemnation of industry and the nature of man. The religious overtones are quickly lost to the depredations of the writing and a need to show even on some level that faith itself is bad. The movie only cursorily gives the option of hope and mercy as if trying to make you wish for it and go “ok only because you asked we’ve added it…”. It felt actually a bit condescending when the beats finally reared their much needed head.

Yet, I don’t actually hate the film. There have been far worse this year and more to come I am sure. So what saved it?

First, lets talk technicals. As much as I mocked him earlier for his artistry, Aronofsky *is* actually talented. He does have an eye for visuals, utilizing both subtle color choices and nuanced background imagery and iconography. I found it entrancing that, within the conciet of this film, one could see heaven even in the day. The use of sharp, vibrant orange hues with raw black silhouettes, shows a director who understands that shape is an art all to itself. It relies on the actors to use their own bodies as a brush to tell you something without expression you can see. It works surprisingly well with a talented hand in this model. It even adds a bit of condemnation to other directors who feel the need to show too much, that audiences will not “get it”. Trust me, we aren’t all that dumb.

The CGI work, however, leaves a little to be desired. It is not Pompeii or Hercules horrible, but it’s pretty close. There is an entire sequence of characters that while fascinating were on some level wrong. There’s just something clearly off in the renders that keeps much of the graphics from doing what they need and they temporarily eject you from the film when they do appear.

The actors. Yet another mixed bag. The movie has an amazing cast of talent both young and old. Statesmen of acting, such as Russell Crowe, Anthony Hopkins, Ray winstone, and even Jennifer Connelly stands an equal amongst these men. The next generation shows itself in Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, and Emma Watson. Let me start off with the simple fact Crowe is not a reason to see this film. Even Winstone and Hopkins, while present and elevating an otherwise mediocre script are spending considerable effort to do so. Crowe himself is …himself. He’s a walking train wreck of blandness even when he is trying to emote.

The real stars here are Connelly and Watson. The *only* time I gave a damn was when they were speaking. When they were acting. They delivered and consistently upstaged everyone with a passionate rawness we need more of. Their tears, when they appeared, were not cute or quaint. They were not hollywood tears. They were the tears of people. They were messy, they were all over the place and they were filled with emotion. Their faces were those of yourself, your wife, your daughter when they cried in pain, in joy and in terror. Their rage was something to behold, even as impotent as it was. Please hollywood, let these two women get more work. There is such potential here for real actors that are still capable of depth and not going through the motions

On another technical front, the movie suffers from horrific pacing issues. It feels it’s length and just when you think it should be done, it continues. Seriously guys? Do you think you are Return of the King. One movie a decade with 20 minute endings is enough.

TL;DR?

Noah is a mixed bag. It should be better. It could be better. There’s mythology used that most are unfamiliar with, but never explored. There’s acting, but so much effort is spent working with something mediocre the greats are too tired to give more. It’s graphically pretty and elegant yet clumsy and off putting.

The film is a movie at war with its own nature. It’s a beautiful dichotomy in what it is trying to tell you about human nature and it’s own execution.

Where does that finally land it?

Meh. It’s simply ok and I really cannot bring myself to say see it at all. If you must then catch it as a matinee. It’s a two and a half hour slog made only redeemable by Watson and Connelly.
Later this week , one of my most anticipated films of the year. Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Darke Reviews | Divergent (2014)

Posted by

5

Let me open with, no I haven’t read the books. Remember that post on the personal facebook page about having an addiction? That was me dropping nearly $100 ON the Books (and a few others, like a hard cover of Frankenstein, but I digress). Now that I’ve seen the movie I can read them comfortably and know that this review is written from pure objectivity as a film. The girl at the coffee bar told me there was mad crowds for the earlier showings tonight and I find that interesting since my showing (the last of the night) only had about thirty or so in it.

what I truly find interesting is the range of material and world building that occurs within the Young Adult (YA) genre. I am twice the age, or more, of it’s target demographic yet I find the books in many of these series compelling. I suppose it’s ironic that a girl who read The Stand when she was eleven reads Vampire Academy, Hunger Games, and Divergent nearly three decades later. Back to the worlds though, when I was in high school it was the start of an interesting age in YA novels I think. I read Vampire Diaries (and still have my first prints) and the Secret Circle and they were sort of avant garde to my perception at the time. Now such works cover entire rows at the bookstores. They cover the supernatural romance, alternative history, alternative modernism, and dystopian futures.

They also show us who we are as a people and who we can be potentially when done properly. The dystopian futures do this best of all. Hunger Games being one of the stronger examples and now Divergent following close by. Where Hunger Games (movies) has actually kind meandered in showing what the best of us can do in adversity and a world that wants to devour of us; Divergent takes a different tact. They introduce a fascinating caste system (classism?) and promptly throw it out the window with the main character. Yes my review is still spoiler free, if you didn’t know she was different, then you haven’t watched a trailer of this yet and its been nearly a year since the first one. Statue of limitations is past. Deal.

Evan Daughtry (Snow White and the Huntsman, Bay’s TMNT) and Vanessa Taylor (three episodes of Game  of Thrones as a writer and 20  episodes of producer credits) have the task of converting twenty five year old Veronica Roths novels to film. As discussed before it is not an easy task. To be honest, I am not 100% sure they were up to it. Let me explain. Vampire Academy is an abomination of adaptation. It fails on more levels than it succeeds in taking the heart, soul and characters and bringing them to screen. It lacks subtlety in any way shape or form and you may feel dumber (or insulted) for watching it. Hunger Games (book 1) is a near perfect adaptation in terms of book to script to screen. There is very little actually cut from the story and the essence of what was trying to be told was brought to the screen.

In Divergent, we have the story of Tris a girl born to at once the lowest caste and the highest. When being tested and eventually choosing her caste for herself, she goes against the grain and adopts a new family forsaking her life and family before. In the course of training to become one with her new caste she truly comes to understand herself and her true nature. It helps to have a mentor along the way and she finds that in Four. While the discovery of self develops, there are machinations of the castes and politics of a different nature occurring that she is caught up in.

At the end of the movie I had an overwhelming sense of…meh. I wanted to care what happened next. I wanted to care and see more, but I didn’t. That is why I think the writers failed. when I read the book, I hope I can say they did what they could with what they had; but I have a feeling this isn’t the strongest adaptation out there. It’s still a  magnitude better than Vampire Academy or the movie that shares a title with the Max Brooks classic. Even not reading the books I know it is a better adaptation than those two repugnant pieces of cinema.

So if the script wasn’t to blame, then perhaps the directing? Neil Burger, best known for Limitless and the Illusionist (the less glitzy version of The Prestige), is the man to blame I think. He got some things right, but his sense of pacing is way off. The movie runs two hours and twenty minutes and it feels it. The best movies can run that long without the audience noticing. I noticed somewhere around the half way point that they were in no way even close to tying up this story. Its true in keeping with the amount of information in a novel it can increase running time, but a clever or skilled director knows how to mask that. Burger isn’t quite up to the task either. The shots are pretty, the direction of the actors is actually very well done, but the overall pacing allowed me to disengage from the story too often. A real problem towards the climax of the film. There are also some editing, continuity and logic fails that left me wondering.

The acting though. well…what to say there?

FINALLY. Finally a movie that isn’t starring Jennifer Lawrence or Chloe Grace Moretz where the younger (not teen) actors are not card board cut outs. actually in some films the cut outs might have more range. Divergent is not that film. All of the actors do their part and make it work. Shailene Woodley (Tris) who is relatively unknown unless you watched The Descendants or Secret Life of the American Teenager is able to carry the film. She brings the right emotions at the right times. Little body language ticks, eye movements, tears brimming, even posture and walk are spot on. She is engaging. She is believable. Her doubts and the fears she does have are played out beautifully as the character transitions due to her acting. She is also one of the strongest female characters I’ve seen of late that isn’t named Katniss. Theo James (Four) who really only has Underworld Awakening (yummy vampire…bad Jess) to his credit also has an amazing range displayed for someone trying to be stoic. While not as refined as Woodley he is just as engaging and worth watching in the time he is on camera. I have to admit, he’s not bad to just watch either. His acting though lets him bring both a certain physicality his role seems to call for and vulnerability in the right moments.

The remainder of the cast left me a little surprised in the opening credits. Ashley Judd, Jai Courtney (Reacher, I Frankenstein),  Ray Stevenson (Thor, the Punisher was almost unrecognizable), Zoe Kravitz (X-Men First Class), Miles Teller (Footloose, That Awkward Moment), Tony Goldwyn (Scandal, Last Samurai, Ghost), Maggie Q (Nikita, Preist) and Kate Winslet (her heart did not go on) cover the majority of the other roles. Most of them are playing their stereotypes well. To say they were anything other than stereotypes would be disingenous. I like and hate the characters accordingly and find that their performances are everything that they SHOULD be, and I really cannot ask for more than that; and I shouldn’t.

From an technical standpoint, seeing a post apocalyptic chicago was interesting. They did a good job crafting that and setting the stage for the world without going into too much exposition to explain it. The visuals tell a story all their own and thats what they should do. Wardrobe and make up were solid and I have to admit it was nice to see people in NOT black leather jackets at all times. The zip line scene was quite fun and might even be interesting in 3D. It’s something I would do.

That’s my final point before I get near the end (oh hush, I know this is a long one). Movies are about escapism to a point. While I don’t escape into this world as easily as I do others like City of Bones or Beautiful Creatures; I found myself wondering where I would be in this world. Dead probably. That said, it created enough of a world that while I wouldn’t want to go there, I could imagine it well enough to find myself there for two and a half hours. No mean feat really. I didn’t find myself wanting to beat the main character senseless for bad decisions, also a plus. In these facets the movie actually succeeds. It both comments on the class-ism of modern american society, gives an escape and entertains while it potentially informs. It does what a good movie should do.

TL;DR? (finally right?)

Divergent is a good movie. As I just said above, it does what a good movie should. It has the potential to inform you if you look beyond the cover, it can entertain you and can give you an escape from your own world for just a bit. It’s a nice place to visit, but you sure as hell wouldn’t want to live there. If you do, I am concerned for your well being.

Can I recommend it for everyone? No. It has problems in it’s execution that are enough that I wouldn’t highly recommend it. This isn’t Frozen or Avengers. This isn’t quite Hunger Games either and again thats to its benefit.

If you were already interested, you can breathe a sigh of relief.It is absolutely family friendly, but I saw someone’s face melt (Raiders) when I was five and was ok with it.

If you were curious, I can say give it a shot. You can even pay full price and not feel bad for it.

If you were not interested to begin with, you won’t be still and will likely find more flaws in it than I did.

After 300, Need for Speed (still surprised there) and now Divergent March has turned out to be a really good month. Here’s hoping the trend continues!

Darke Reviews | Need for Speed (2014)

Posted by

0

Well, that was an experience. A few reviews back I talked about movies that were better than they had any right to be. Let’s talk for a moment about one of them before I get into this one.

Smokin’ Aces.

This movie has an amazing cast of actors and actresses you know now and in some cases didn’t know then. It has so called A-list actors and at the time some true unknowns like this guy Chris Pine and some other schmuck named Ryan Reynolds. It has a plot that’s so convoluted its Tarantino-esque but is simple and honest at the same time. It knows what it is, tries to be more and actually succeeds. It has beautiful action you get to see, character driven moments that work incredibly well and ridiculous moments that make you wonder what the director was smoking at the time. It ties together almost seamlessly and you need to watch every moment for fear of missing something. To steal from that overblown director Nolan, “it has the ending we need, not the ending we want.” Actually thats a lie it has both the ending we want and need. Even the alternate ending while bad ass isn’t as epic as what we get. We need more movies like that.

Avoid the sequel its garbage.

Need for Speed is *not* that level of greatness. Let me get that out of the way now. It is, however, better than it should be. I really don’t know how. I’ve seen all the films that can be seen as inspiration to it in the last decade and a half; such as Fast and Furious (all), Torque, Gone in sixty seconds (yes I know its a remake), Death Race(another remake I know). I’ve seen some of the older films that drove this particular film (no pun intended), Bullit, Smokey and the Bandit, Mad Max and the Wraith (hey I reviewed that one). They loved Bullit enough to show it on a drive in during this movie. Yes, I noticed a movie I hadn’t seen and still knew what it was. Steve McQueen is that iconic.

Back to the point, the movie draws its inspiration from all of these sources and of course the video game that truly it is actually based on from EA games. The plot is as thin as they get and if you blink you miss it, but has a nice working man’s quality to it that I think the writers were able to bring. John Gatins (Coach Carter, Reel Steel, Flight) and I can only assume his brother George (this is his only writing credit), clearly have a love affair with the movies I mentioned. They gave us the working class family that Fast and Furious did, they made them fun and a little interesting.

The story revolves around Tobey Marshall (Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul) a young man who inherits his fathers garage and is trying to make ends meet for him and his friends. He gets involved with someone he knows he shouldn’t in an attempt to make things comfortable for that adopted family. Things of course go wrong. When he finally gets out of prison he manages to get himself entered into an illegal race against his archrival Dino Brewster (Captain America’s Dominic Cooper) run by an eccentric millionaire (Michael Keaton).

One thing that can be said is director Scott Waugh knows how to shoot action. After giving us Act of Valor a few years back, Stunt Man turned director knows a thing or two about making a shot look good. Apparently it doesn’t matter if its a car or a man he shoots it well. He lets his actors have their quiet moments and then ramps the action. I was never into cars as a girl, I was all about jets and naval ships. That said his decisions on cars were truly works of art. I was surprised to know some of the makers and models here, the Shelby of course being a beautiful standout. Granted I know for fact Ford pretty much paid for this movie to be a commercial for the mustang. I accept that. I don’t mind movies marketing to me when the product placement makes sense.

Now, obviously we need to talk about the acting for a moment. Whew. Ok. So. Um. I’ve never seen Breaking Bad, so I don’t know what Aaron Paul is capable of but based on the fans of the show it was more than this. This had the amazing disappearing /reappearing accent. An apparent inability to look anyone in the eyes directly or talk above a mumble. I know that he may have been trying to channel some of those iconic drivers of the past but it mostly comes across silly. Dominic Cooper who did an amazing job in the Devils Double possibly suffered brain trauma or his contract said screw subtlety. The word villain is pretty much tattooed on his forehead. Rain Malek (Twilight Breaking Dawn, Oldboy), Ramon Rodriguez (Battle Los angeles, and the thankfully short lived Charlies Angels), and Scott Mescudi (aka Kid Cudi) play Marshalls friends. Each one is surprisingly different and interesting. There’s enough banter and charisma between them that I felt like I was watching actual friends.

Then there is Imogen Poots (Fright Night, Centurion) as Julia Maddon who is surprisingly fun in her role. I acknowledge the fact she’s the female stereotype for the modern car film. In the 60’s to 80’s the idea of a female driver who could keep up with the guys was all but anathema. Now when she gets behind the wheel and shows she can hold her own it is the new stereotype. Death Race and Fast and Furious both give us this new “strong” female who is into cars and can handle them. She’s beautiful and car smart, if only she was a character unto herself and not just the new fantasy for the boys. I will however, take the victory in that we do have a strong female who isn’t just eye candy and thank them for taking steps in the right direction. Imogen brings the right amount of charisma to it to make it work and is generally more interesting than Paul.

There isn’t much to talk in the technicals. The cars are beautiful. The stunts are clean. The pacing is hit and miss and when it runs a little long in the tooth some times you feel it. There’s a few editing tweaks where I can tell they are shooting at different times of night and day within what is supposed to be the same shot, but thats really the worst of it. Where there is CG in the races, its exceedingly clean and I will again thank them and move on.

TL;DR?

This thing won’t win oscars. It also isn’t razzie worthy either. It actually tries to be a little more than fast cars doing insane things on the road. It doesn’t always succeed but certainly tried with a lot of heart and that definitely gives it some mileage over most of the garbage we’ve been fed this year. The Heart is important folks and surprisingly this one had it.

The movie overall is “Ok”. I was entertained more than I expected, but I went in expecting the worst (Hercules) and got something better. I smiled few times and was for the most part entertained.

If you were the least bit curious, see it for budget pricing, matinee at most. The 3D is cute, but not worth it. Otherwise, it can wait for Redbox and Netflix.

The truly best I can say is it was not the crime against humanity that was expected.

—————

Depending on the weekend I may be able to get a Veronica Mars review in later. I should have my digital download from the Kickstarter soon. If not next week you get Divergent, Hollywood’s next attempt to bank on the teen novel genre.

Darke Reviews | 300: Rise of an Empire

Posted by

0

Ah Zack Snyder, you and I have a love hate relationship. You make such visually stunning movies. You make movies so thin on plot that they are translucent. You have an eye for action that many directors would kill for, yet you cannot let us see all the action with your quick cuts and camera movements. You are a teenage boy playing out his fantasies and whims on the big screen, making money hand over fist despite all logic saying otherwise. Now, you returned to the movie that made you a Hollywood name.

7 years ago, a guy who gave us an interesting yet ultimately hollow remake of Dawn of the Dead was given a book written by the talented Frank Miller. The book was a mere 88 pages of illustration and light text. Snyder then proceeded to faithfully recreate nearly every panel of the book on screen. He proceeded to make a film with a visual style we had never seen. The usage of slow to fast combat had never quite been done in this manner. He didn’t fear blood, violence and style. He was given 65 million dollars by Warner Bros. and turned it into 210 million domestically ($456mm combined). We loved it for all it was worth and ripped it apart in the way that we do in the months to come. He has had 7 years to learn and grow as a director, writer and producer. Has he?

Perhaps so. Indicated by that he didn’t actually direct this. That task fell to unknown director Noam Murro. I don’t think he disappointed. As a writer on this Snyder once again played faithful to Millers 300 sequel “Xerxes”. He was assisted by Kurt Johnstad who apparently doesn’t have blood in his veins only testosterone. Johnstad also wrote 300 and Act of Valor prior to this. Does this man just want to write recruitment videos for the military? He’s succeeding if so. All of that said, this movie actually had more character moments in it than its predecessor but only barely. More epic speeches and only slightly less yelling. It doesn’t do much more than 300 did, but is thankfully different enough to not just rehash the last film.

What it does do however is provider Murro a perfect backdrop with which to craft the art of the film. Now this part may seem strange, but there was a time History channel showed actual history. I know, its surreal. One of the specials they had done was on the battles between Persia and Greece. Murro, Snyder and Johnstad must have seen the same special. For this movie they used actual tactics of the Greek Navy against the Persians. They used ship to ship and naval tricks and tactics used by both sides. Sadly they didn’t put in any of the biological warfare that was also used, but I will take what I can get. Yes, its hyper stylized, dramaticized and not completely historically accurate, but damn it they tried and should get credit for it.

As it comes to the acting the movies strength is here. The movie is filled mostly with relative unknowns who have had small roles in film or within TV. Returning of course is Lena Headey (Cersei Lannister from Game of Thrones if you didn’t know) who apparently must play truly bad ass women. This is not a complaint, more of a compliment. Though her part is regretfully minor she is memorable. David Wenham appears as a backdrop piece only in his role of Dilios. Rodrigo Santoro gets to go without full make up for a bit as Xerxes again, but is otherwise also little more than backdrop. Even Themistokles, our movies hero, played by Sullivan Stapleton (one of those unknowns) is only somewhat memorable.

The movie belongs to the character who was once in the title of the film, Artemisia. Eva Green (Casino Royale, Kingdom of Heaven and the abomination that was Dark Shadows) is center stage here. The camera loves her, the plot loves her and even as the villain of the movie you cheer for her. Every scene she is in, she commands. She is watchable, she is a gothic beauty that is magnificently psychotic. She’s a Wednesday Addams in Greece. All of her scenes, even one that is pretty much unnecessarily long, she is in control. She is not passive in the movie and joins the battle as quickly as anyone else. The subtle nuances she brings in the quiet moments are what make her whole and keep her from being the caricature that Xerxes was. Does it sound like I am in love? Perhaps so.

Sadly, the movie comes with its flaws as well. Much like Hercules earlier this year, apparently 3D now means you must have motes floating in every…frakking scene! Seriously, if there were that many embers of the fires in the air people would be incinerated from the inside out. It actually was distracting me in some scenes where we were supposed to focus on the characters. There’s even more blood splatter in this movie than 300 if you can believe that. I am not sure if thats good or bad yet, but it’s there. The hyper stylized colour pallette of 300 has also returned, though it doesn’t always seem present which is a little off putting. There was one scene where I am reasonably certain every character in it was a CGI render. If it wasn’t it was *really* bad CG colour correction and overlay on those characters that turned them from men to something I’d expect to see in a video game cut scene. Not good guys. Not good there at all.

There are some editing issues as well. In 300 we are introduced to characters that we are supposed to care about and we learn, care or not, their fates. Here, we are introduced to characters we are supposed to care about and apparently the editors forgot that. There are a few characters you may like, but didn’t rate high enough to know their ultimate fate; which is surprisingly in question. Also the strength and skill of both Greek and Persian changes depending on whom they are fighting. If we don’t care the persians die, if we care the greeks die. If you can tell me the characters name they are pretty awesome in battle, otherwise well…yeah.

TL;DR?

This movie made me smile. It’s the movie I have been waiting 66 days for. The first movie this year I can say with satisfaction is GOOD. It’s not great folks, but damnit it is both good and entertaining. It has its completely over the top ridiculous moments, but it is the work of art it needed to be and is reasonably solid throughout.

That said, its not for all audiences. I won’t deny the eye candy on either side of the gender roles, but this won’t be your *average* date movie and certainly isn’t family friendly. If you have a date who wants to see this and you want to see it. Go. Dear gods go. Otherwise, just go!

If this is how the spring blockbuster season starts, there’s hope for the movies this year yet.

Next week, I feel the need, The Need for Speed. – No I don’t think it looks good, but what the hell.

Darke Reviews | Pompeii (2014)

Posted by

2

What is a guilty pleasure movie? In some previous reviews back in October I indicated some of the movies weren’t good, but were in fact my guilty pleasure. What does that mean? Do I actually feel guilty for enjoying the movie? Not really. It does however mean that I am taking enjoyment from a film that I know is not all that good. There are plenty of films out there that meet this criteria. Sometimes it’s ok for a film to not be good, but still be entertaining. That of course gets into the question of what is a “Good film”. I mean if a film entertains you doesn’t that mean it’s good?

Well no. A combination of things make a movie good – for me. Thats the key here, its very subjective as is all forms of art to the viewer. I think the Mona Lisa is the work of a master with subtle nuances in the color and design. Do I enjoy looking at it? Would I want a print of it? No. Conversely, I have art on my wall that is not nearly as finely crafted, but gives me pleasure to look at. It’s the same with movies. There are films that are masterworks of their craft and films that do all the things right that they can and are “good” or “great”. Then there are ones that fail at many elements that show an artists touch yet are still entertaining. Schindlers List, a masterpiece, but is it entertaining to me? No. Starship Troopers, fails on many levels, but is eminently entertaining.

Why this particularly lengthy explanation? Because it ties to the works of the director of Pompeii – Paul W.S. Anderson. As always before writing my reviews I go over director, writer, and actor filmographies. I reviewed Mr. Anderson (and if you said that in your head like Hugo Weaving – points for you) and his work. I must admit while none of his movies can truly be called “Good” I actually enjoy every…last…one. For those not as versed, he is behind all five Resident Evil films, Soldier, Event Horizon, AVP, Death Race, Mortal Kombat and the recent Three Musketeers.  Few of which can be argued as being good, but have elements to them that are well, in a word arguably good. I find all of them actually fun to watch and have done so multiple times. This is why I went into Pompeii expecting nothing good, yet came out vaguely entertained.

Vaguely. This is perhaps the weakest of his films to date. Some of his previous ones are self aware enough to know they are bad (Resident Evil 4,5,6) and others strive for something more and achieve it (SOldier, Event Horizon). This is one that never apparently tries to be more than it is. It barely tries to do anything other than take itself too seriously for what the director and script are capable of. This could have been Titanic. This wanted to use history as a beat, but not truly use it for what it could have. The science, the history, Pliny’s journal and the remnants of what was found in the shadow of Vesuvius all could have driven the story forward without being the plot. They could have been respected, they could have been used at all.

They weren’t.

Instead we were given the opening of Conan, the love story of Titanic and the plot of Gladiator. There was not an original idea or element in this movie. A better director could have done something with that, but alas Anderson is not that director. The writers of course get the blame for the material. We begin with Janet Scott Batchler, the last thing she worked on of note was Batman Forever. I think I need not explain further on her. Her husband Lee is also a credit here (but sadly not a credit to script writing) who assisted in Batman Forever. The final writing credit, and you know the rules now on three writers or more, is for Michael Robert JOhnson, who gave us the 2009 Sherlock Holmes, which was actually pretty good. The writing here was just lazy.

This is the story of a man whose people, “The Celtic Horse People”, were killed by romans when he was just a boy. He escaped the massacre and was in turn sold into slavery. In the way of such tales, he of course becomes a fearsome gladiator that is moved from the lands of the British isles to Italy to fully make money off of his prowess. Along the way the slave/gladiator falls for a rich noble of the roman empire who of course falls for him as well. Over the course of three days, in which they spend approximately five hours together they form a deep and meaningful relationship all the while he is fighting as a gladiator. Oh and there’s a volcano that erupts too. Thats not a spoiler. It’s a movie called Pompeii.

Kit Harrington is our lead actor as “The Celt”, best known for his work as Jon Snow in Game of Thrones he doesn’t show any more range than he does as Snow. He does however show that he can actually kick ass and fight with passion. He also shows his six pack. Dayum. He’s pretty but has the acting range of Kristen Stewart and Keanu Reeves. Emily Browning plays Rose, er Cassia, our roman love interest. She is doe eyed most of the film but thankfully not entirely helpless. She’s actually the most interesting character in the movie. She has inner strength, cunning and even a bit of a vicious streak. Browning also gets better looking the dirtier she gets and less doe eyed she gets. The movie also has the talents of Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, the second most interesting character. That is to say he feels like a whole person. There’s also Jared Harris, Carrie Anne Moss and a surprise presence of Kiefer Sutherland. I didn’t even know he still made movies anymore.

What of the production? The science of the eruption (to my knowledge) is off just enough to feel wrong to me. The effects of it themselves are solid. They fit with Andersons usual work with clearly being CGI but better than we get in plenty of other feature films. Certainly the best CG we’ve seen this year. The editing though. Look I get how hard editing is. You have to watch time stamps and sync sound and video and make sure everything is perfect. You have to cut scenes that are perfect save for a single element or piece them together in a way no one can tell there’s something wrong. So why in all of that work did someone miss Harrington being called “Snow” in one scene and “Kit” in another.

TL;DR?

Between the blatantly recycled plot, mediocre acting, only average effects, it shouldn’t be surprising that the movie delivers a colossal “meh”. I *was* entertained, but not as much as his other works. I shouldn’t laugh as people are dying, yet I did.

I know its been out a few weeks now, but if you haven’t already give it a pass. Judging from its box office receipts most people knew this. You can watch it on Netflix or Redbox or something later when you need some noise in the background while doing something you actually care about.

All of that said, prior to tomorrows review of 300 Rise of an Empire…

What are *YOUR* guilty pleasure movies?

Darke Reviews | Robocop (2014)

Posted by

1

Dead or alive, I was going to see this. I admit I had a serious amount of nostalgia for the original 1987 Paul Verhooven (Starship Troopers, TOtal Recall) vehicle. I was one of the ones who when I saw the black sleek look on Robocop was unhappy. When I heard it was PG 13 instead of a hard R I was unhappy. Then I saw the trailer and at least understood why he took the black. I was more ok with it. I went yesterday as part of a double feature where my friend and I saw “I, Frankenstein” and this back to back. I don’t think going into it either of us realized the beautiful symmetry of this combination of films.

In previous reviews I have explained the multiple writer problem with a film. In some cases, the reverse can also be true where only one writer can be just as damaging to a film as too many writers. Giving such a recognizable property to a first time writer though, seems an odd choice and further echoes the words “Studio Cash Grab”. Joshua Zetumer clearly put his passion into the script and tried to update the movie for almost thirty years later. He also made some mistakes as well where he wanted to do too much and didn’t know how to execute on the interesting ideas he had. It’s a common problem with writers, myself included, where we have ideas and we want to get them to the page but we don’t explore them nearly as much as they deserve because we want to get to other stuff. Tip: If you are not ready to commit to a philosophical topic in a movie, don’t even begin to address it.

The story focuses around good cop and family man Alex Murphy. The quintessential good apple in a bad city surrounded on all sides by corruption and a city that’s screaming up to the powers that be “save us.” When Alex is seriously wounded as a counterattack for going after one of the cities biggest weapons dealers Omnicorp steps in and offers a solution. You see Omnicorp has a problem, they can’t put their robots on the streets of the US due to a law and the power of public opinion. Instead they put a man in a machine and sell him to the people to get opinion to change and to overturn the law. If only it were that easy, see a man has a will his own and while OCP seeks to control him at any cost the newly roboticized Alex decides the cost is too high.

Much like the original the film tries to lampoon a bit of what the modern societal landscape is. The 80s version covered ridiculous, toxic waste, corporate corruption, russians, drugs, and the raw depredation of society. While a serious film, it didn’t take itself too seriously. The 2014 version attempts to poke at the pathetically one sided news agencies with hosts who don’t report news but shout buzzwords at an accepting audience, marketing and that self same corporate greed the earlier one did. This one also tries to get philosophical and asks the question of what makes a man? unfortunately I Frankenstein handled that better (more in that review) The problem with all of this is that it takes itself too seriously and rather than shining a light on the idiocy of it all; it instead becomes a simple weak beat in a plodding plot.

The script isn’t entirely to blame though. Jose Padilha, in his first time directing an american film, also deserves his share of the blame. The movie has some of the most horrific pacing issues I’ve seen of late. It runs an easy twenty minutes longer than is needed and has a deeply unsatisfying ending thats reminiscent of the Return of the King with the number of false stops it has. His direction of the camera doesn’t do the action any justice either with a constant swirl or shaky cam that tells me he just wanted to try the technique. I only say that because he shows in other sequences that he does understand the concept of a steady cam. A sequence in which Robocop attacks a lab is shot in either thermo vision or night vision depending in which side of the fight you are on. It felt like he saw how Tarantino got away with bloodshed in Kill Bill (Bride vs Crazy 88s) and wanted to try that so he could keep the movie at a studio mandated PG13.

The studio also gets its share of the blame, but sadly its understandable from a corporate point of view. Their job is to make money and R rated movies don’t make nearly as much as PG-13 as they keep out a significant portion of the potential young male audience. First time director, first time writer, no actors anyone really recognizes (mostly)? Its clear they didn’t care about the project and just wanted to make a little over its budget or needed to retain rights for later.

The acting is…a mixed bag for me. The Killing’s Joel Kinnaman does what he can with the script and the direction. He tries a lot to bring some emotion to a film otherwise devoid of it. Is he as imposing as Peter Weller? No, not even close. His delivery of a few nostalgic lines needed work. But he tries and that is important. Abbie Cornish (Suckerpunch) plays his wife and tries as hard as Kinnaman does to bring emotion to it and deal with the storyline of Alex trying to reconnect to his family after the accident. I’d like to see more of her in other films; though admittedly I thought she was Radha Mitchell at first. Those are the two noteworthy performances. Michael Keaton phones it in as director of Omnicorp Raymond Sellers. Everything about him comes across like a half arsed understanding of what a corporate leader is these days. I know he is trying to make a career comeback, but he will have to actually put a little effort next time. Sadly next time is Need for Speed; not a good way to come back Mike. Jackie Earle Haley (watchmen, Nightmare on Elm Street) and Samuel L Jackson are here to chew scenery and be just shy of ridiculous. Sadly only Haley actually delivers on that. Jacksons presence while picking on the modern news agent actually detracts from the movie. As my friend said “I can’t take the movie seriously now” when he finished his opening rant. It was true. He was too much as he often is. I loved sam for awhile, but much like Willis he needs to stop while he is ahead before he becomes his own punchline. Speaking of actors, Gary Oldman as Dr. Dennett Norton tries as well to do what he can with the material. His performance falls right in the middle. I love Oldman for all he does, but could have cared less this time around.

TL;DR?

That’s largely the problem with the film. I don’t care. It had no substance to it. It wanted to be more than it was capable of and reached for the stars. I don’t even think it made escape velocity. It wasn’t prepared to commit to any of the ideas it wanted to try and because of that for well over two hours you are left wanting a bit more than you will ever get from the movie.

It is not right, nor fair, to compare it to the original. They are different films; and as much as I love the original I know its not good. Its a beautiful painting of ridiculousness.

Sorry to say folks, Robocop deserves a pass. I had hope for it, but as the credits rolled I felt unsatisfied. Your move hollywood, make it a good one next time.

Darke Reviews | I Frankenstein (2014)

Posted by

1

This one is coming a lot later than it’s release date, but judging from the Box Office none of you have seen it. I suppose that counts for something? Every bit of word of mouth review I have heard for this film said it was god awful. I even heard it hit 0% on Rotten Tomatoes for a bit; though I can’t verify that as I don’t check other reviews before writing my own. I will stand by that til the day I die (not that death is really something I consider a limitation). Honestly due to the word of mouth alone going into this I expected the worst. The trailers didn’t do it much justice, despite the fact this is from the producers of Underworld; a film series which I rather enjoy for all it does bring.

Lets talk about the writer, Kevin Grevioux (Underworld) and the concepts he wanted to bring to screen. I discussed earlier the fact that Robocop also wanted to address the element of What does it mean to be a man? Where Robocop plodded along and refused to get to the point on that concept like some petulant child, I Frankenstein goes the other way. The movie has more exposition than anything I’ve seen recently, what keeps it from being painful is the fact that between the exposition is light tension and some relatively beautiful fight sequences. The entire concept of the film seems to revolve around the concept of the soul and does a man like Frankensteins Monster have one? What is it that makes him what he is? Is he a man, he is certainly not human, nor infernal, nor divine. Each scene of exposition seems to tie back to this basic concept; as do most of the relevant plot points. In this the movie succeeds heads above Robocop. Its also somewhat clumsy at times with it and a nasty habit of too much dialogue when they bother with it and dialogue said without a soul behind it.

Sadly that falls on the director and additional screenplay credit Stuart Beattie. It saddens me how hollow this one is when you compare it to other works he has done, such as “Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl” and a movie few of you have seen but all of you should, “Tomorrow, when the War Began”. TWWB is Red Dawn told better. It is shot beautifully, the characters are endearing and cover the gamut of what youd expect, but it does so much right and has actual heart to it. That is what saddens me about I,F. It has no heart, no soul of its own, which is ironic in a movie about a mans quest for a soul. It comes across too paint by numbers and a slight variation on Underworld; enough so that they could be in the same universe.

How you ask?

This is the story of a centuries old secret war between two diametrically opposed forces. Both sides become curious about a single individual with the intention on capturing and controlling him to give their side the advantage in the war. Be that advantage as a basis for a psuedo science experiment to create an ubermensch or just a weapon that can defeat the enemy. The “choosen one” wants to decide his own destiny and after resisting finally joins the war but on his own terms and his own side.

Which film did I describe? You can’t tell and thats a problem. A saving grace of the I,F story is the fact that they don’t deal with the Jesus metaphor in the central character that was ripe for the picking.

The acting is all over the place in the movie, which doesn’t help enhance the story. You have cases for overacting, underacting and people who are just phoning it in. Aaron Eckhardt as the Monster, decides to go for the underacting and apparently wants to show he could have played Batman as well. He is quiet, brooding and barely says a word focusing instead on long glares through his eyebrows. Jai Courtney (the abomination called the 5th Die Hard film) also went to the underacting school; though in his case I don’t know if its underacting or that he may infact be an animate mannequin. Bill Nighy showed up for the paycheck and decided to do what he does best and be the most awesome thing on screen. I really want to see a film with him and Gary Oldman, that would be fun to watch. Miranda Otto (Eowyn from Lord of the Rings) has not aged well the past few years, but tries her best and at least does well when she’s working with Eckhardt and showing the others how it’s done. Then there is Yvonne Starhovski (Chuck for some of you, Miranda from Mass Effect 2/3 for others) as Terra. I swear this girl cannot help taking roles where she’s reanimating the dead. She, like Otto, tries her best to play the role and pulls off a believable scientist. The movie thankfully only teases a bit of romantic or sexual tension between Terra and the Monster, and for that we owe them a debt of gratitude. It would have worked, but also would have been entirely unnessecary.

As far as the effects go, the transformation from Gargoyle/Angel to Human is one of the more beautiful effects I have seen and works in every situation. Conversely, the human to demon transition does not work nearly as well. The look of the Gargoyles themselves are mediocre at best. The Weapons and other technical effects are loaded with the traditional Underworld pretty but not practical factor. I also am left with questions on the housing market in Eastern Europe after watching it as nearly every building looks as if it should be condemned.

TL;DR time? I suppose.

I, Frankenstein is actually watchable if you enjoyed the Underworld series. Its light, its fluffy and makes for great background noise if you watch it on DVD or Netflix – which is its most likely venue for most people.

I cant say you need to see this film in good concience. but its certainly not the worst thing this year. It currently is floating on the top of the flotsam and jetsam of rubbish we have been delivered by Hollywood thus far. Wait for Redbox or Netflix folks.

I am hoping, though it is likely in vain, that 300 Rise of an Empire (I’d have preferred Battle of Artemisia its original title) coming in March will be the first film I can recommend with my soul ( stop laughing) intact.

Darke Reviews | Vampire Academy (2014)

Posted by

2

I am the Vampire Princess, when a vampire movie comes out into the theatres I have no choice but to see it. It’s a moral (amoral?) obligation for me, that means I even had to see all the twilights on the silver screen and did so. I find myself continually amazed at how a studio is completely incapable of understanding source material or the gem they have with a vampire property. The trailers for this film put that lack of understanding on a silver platter. watching the clips that were designed to make you want to see this film – I mean thats what a trailer is for right – told you there was a producer selling it as Clueless with Fangs. There was another one selling it as Buffy. Another selling it as City of Bones at school and with fangs.  When there is that lack of understanding from a producer and film editor level  it tells you what to expect all the while telling you not to see a movie. Even the posters fail to sell the film – “They suck at school?” REALLY?

So here we are, Vampire Academy based on the acclaimed YA series by Richelle Mead. Per usual folks, I have not read the book series. Unlike usual, I will be doing so. I need to know what I Was supposed to be getting, rather than what I got. Daniel Waters, elder brother of the director Mark Waters. I actually like the writing filmography of Daniel. Heathers, Hudson Hawk, Batman Returns and Demolition Man. The thing here is, none of them are really that good. They all show a distinct lack of subtlety and upon thinking of it further a hate for teenagers. You can tell he loathes them in how he writes their dialogue and gives them their personalities. This may be a trait shared by his brother Mark, who gave us Mean Girls, Freaky Friday (2003), and Mr. Poppers Penguins. Both of these men have a habitual way of treating the teen girl. So why were they given the writing and directing?

That probably can lay on Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Best known for delivering some of the cheapest films that appear to have a high production value. If you think of the Scream movies, Prophecy (all six of them), Dracula 2000, and so many others like it their fingerprints are on it. They like to pander to the audience and assume the worst of the intelligence level of the modern movie goer. This isn’t to say they don’t have a gem or two out there, but the reality is they don’t respect the art of movie making and it shows with each successive film.

What we were supposed to get, apparently, was a story of two best friends. Teenage girls with responsibilities that really no teen should have laid upon them. One,  the heir Lissa Dragomir to a vampiric empire and the other, Rose Hathaway, sworn to protect her. They’ve been running from this destiny for some time and are finally caught and brought back into the fold of a prep school with fangs. Reacclimation to school life doesn’t go well as Lissa begins to discover the limits of her powers and drags Rose along with her. The entire time still dealing with all the lovely teenage angst that high school brings with it.

The script is a painful mess of cliches and badly written language. I can’t lay all the blame on the actors for how it turned out. I can lay some of it though. Lucy Fry (Lissa) just can’t act. Then they gave her fangs which she never learned to speak around. Gabriel Byrne, seems to want to drain the scenery as he chews it rather than blood. It’s like he didn’t care and it shows in the performance. Going through it none of the performances deliver more than hollow schlock of people too young and too inexperienced to really give the movie any real weight. The closest to a good performance is Zoey Deutch (Beautiful Creatures) as Rose. She is at least somewhat capable of trying to emote. Sadly the lines she’s given and the direction she is given hampers any weight she might have been able to bring.

The only thing going for it is the fact that the vampires have fangs and the sets are somewhat beautiful. Vampires with fangs is under rated these days, and the design of the fangs is somewhat traditional. Most people don’t spend time on fang details but they are as important as any other character when dealing with vampire fiction. They can look ridiculous, they can impair speech, they can be threatening or they can be beautiful. These fall somewhere between the ridiculous and the beautiful. An apparent one size fits all approach was used which made the fangs look bad in some mouths and moderately ok in others.

TL;DR?

Goddess I wanted to like this. I really did. I cannot in good conscience say this film is anything but a hot mess. It should have been better and probably could have. Even the pop cover of Bela Lugosi’s Dead, while interesting, came across  wrong.

I need, the world needs, a good vampire story again. I worry about Dracula Year Zero/Dracula Untold later this year.

Time to get to work on mine and order the books for this one. In the meanwhile, two more reviews coming later this week. 2014 has not been good so far with no signs on the horizon of change.

Darke Reviews | The Monuments Men (2014)

Posted by

0

Been a few weeks since something came out I got to see, so thats the real reason for the delay here. This week is one of two movies for review, the other has more bite to it I hope. The Monuments Men tells a story I’ve not seen in film and certainly wasn’t told about in history class. It has quite a few things going for it in that regard. Telling a story from World War II that hasn’t before is actually quite hard these days. Let’s get into it shall we?

The story is adapted from a book by Robert Edsel titled “The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History”. It tells the story of the MFAA, Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives program, a sadly little known unit established in 1943 to protect the cultural property in war areas during World War II. The screen play was adapted by Clooney himself with character actor and sometimes collaborator Grant Heslov (True Lies, Good Night and Good Luck, Ides of March). The movie focuses on one small group of the department and their attempt to rescue some priceless and personal artifacts from the Nazi’s as the war comes to an end. They face resistance from Nazi’s, Russians, and even their own people as they try to protect something the military itself cared little about during the war. Is a piece of art worth a mans life?

Clooney also directs this film, which combined with the script leaves most of the blame on him where the film goes wrong. Which, sadly, is quite a few places. One of the key functions of story is a narrative arc, with a a rise and fall in events that drives the characters forward through some form of conflict. The movie fails in that basic element of story. Yes, events happen. Yes, there are beats of cliche with moments of sadness or levity, but there is really no dramatic tension.

I wish I could say that there was, but the film just delivers a series of moments losely connected to each other by the plot of trying to find pieces of lot art. Few of the moments have any real weight to them and the moments that do are glossed over in such a hollow way that it loses the intensity it should have. Some are told out a strong dramatic order so that when you should be going “Oh damn…” you are simply shaking your head sadly. Even the few deaths that occur among the members of the cast come across as cliche and something you’ve seen a dozen times before and because of that become little more than a beat that has no meaning.

It’s unfortunate that as the movie pulls together an amazing cast of comedic talent that could have delivered some of the most dramatic performances of their careers. John Goodman, Bill Murray are wasted. Clooney’s own sense of timing seems off as he was focused three ways on script, acting and directing. The only high point is the interactions between Blanchett and Damon. Blanchetts character actually has the most depth of any of them, with the only arc worth a damn.

All of that said, the movie has some very pretty moments and some beautiful art. Art that would have been lost if not for the real men and women of the MFAA. The statues, the paintings, the lives displayed and lost. For all its flaws, of which there are many, the movie does remind us of a dark time in history that is quickly losing its weight in our modern world.

TL;DR?

The Monuments Men is an ok film that tells a story that needed to be told; but as a film it nearly fails. It wants to tell a story bigger than its capable and in that the weaknesses become apparent.

If you were interested in seeing it, its worth a matinee pass at best. The art alone and the history is worth it.

Otherwise, give this one a pass this weekend and save your money for Valentines day, or some other day where you might need money.

This should be a busy week for reviews, so sit tight folks!!