X-Men First Class (2011) review

Overall verdict: 8.5/10

The Good: Great cast chemistry, believable character drama, top notch special effects, ample character development with equal focus on main characters, well shot action sequences, numerous references to previous x-men films,

The Bad: minor plot holes, pace too brisk at times, "tacked on" cheesy romance subplot, detracts a lot from comic book origins, look and feel of film does not match the intended 1960s time frame of the story

Current Availability Status: In Theatres Island wide 2 June

******************************Review********************
X-citing, X-travagent and X-tremely entertaining, X-men First Class explodes into theatres with a coming of age tale that digs deeper than your usual special effects laden blockbuster. Here is a rare creature, a prequel that may easily be one of the few that can hold their own against their original films. If the insipid X-men Origins Wolverine left a bad taste in the mouth, X-men First Class returns to the roots of what made the original X-men such a hit in the comic book world. Roaring adventure tales with lovable characters; epic in scope yet filled with heart and spirit.

One complaint against the otherwise excellent X-Men films by Bryan Singer was that it was less of an "X-men" film and more like a Wolverine film guest starring the X-men. First Class corrects that mistake and delivers a true ensemble film that gives ample development to all its main characters. Ironic that for the film which perfectly captures the team dynamic and chemistry of "X-men", it is not based on any one particular X-men comic title, not even the similarly named series "X-men: First Class"(the comic).

The movie works purely as a prequel set largely during the 1960s Cuban missile crisis. Before becoming Magneto the master of magnetism, Erik Lensherr was a bitter mutant seeking vengeance against the Nazi officer, Sebastian Shaw, who tortured him and killed his mother. Before he was professor X, telepathic Charles Xavier was a suave, wavy haired University graduate who, along with his adopted shape shifting sister, Raven, are put to work by the CIA to track down the infamous leader of the Hellfire club who so happens to be the Sebastian Shaw Erik is seeking. A fateful turn of events brings these unlikely individuals together and the discovery of Shaw's plans of nuclear war inspires the establishment of a team of mutant agents to end this crisis. Together, Xavier, Erik and Raven recruit a team of young adult mutants, each with their own powers, quirks and insecurities about their place in the world.

As the film moves along its brisk pace, the motivations, perspectives and unique personalities of each character are adequately fleshed out within a limited period of time. Themes of racism, alienation, extremist idealism and discovering one's calling in life, all themes inherent in the X-men comics and past movies, are explored. Tragic turn of events inevitably lead to questioning of one's allegiance and most courses of action that the characters take come very naturally, their reasons implied through dialogue and subtle cues . Audiences more used to explicit exposition and explanation for characters' motivations might feel that some of the characters' actions made little sense. Rest assured, it is all implied within the narrative but never feel at the forefront due to the film's pace.

Already at a whopping 131 minutes, X-men First Class does feel rushed only because it tries too hard to develop all the main characters. While each of them do undergo significant changes and growth by the end, this comes at the price of underdeveloped villains and a story that hops all over the world with no sense of a time frame. This leads to some avoidable plot holes especially in the middle and later parts of the film. And on the subject of time, this movie is meant to be set in the 1960s. However, aside from some old computers and archival footage of President Kennedy, nothing else feels like it fit in that era. The look of the various locales, the way the characters speak, even the clothing have an obvious 2000s feel.

Not that there is anything wrong with how the characters speak. The writers bring a snappy rhythm and youthful beat to the dialogue, enhanced many fold by the excellent performances and impeccable chemistry of the actors. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender who play Charles and Erik respectively manage to channel the nuances of the roles previously played Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen. As a result, their characters feel familiar for the long time fans yet fresh to newcomers to the franchise. The only black mark on the script is the mandatory romantic subplot involving Raven, Hank and Erik which felt like it was put in there as an afterthought.

After two disappointing X-men movies, "evolution leaps forward". Compared to the other X-men films, X-men First Class out shines both X-men 3 and X-men Origins: Wolverine. One could regard this movie as almost on par with the first, delivering pure entertainment in the action but never forgetting its heart in the characters. It is easily accessible to new audiences while those who have watched the previous X-men movies will thrill at the many connections and references made. With a sequel already being planned, the X-men movie franchise is finally getting the jump start it needs.

*****************************Review End******************

Go For it: if you like an epic summer blockbuster with heart and unencumbered by comic book continuity or if you had been a fan of the first two X-men films, were disappointed in the 3rd or the wolverine film, and would like your "faith" in the franchise restored.
Avoid it: if complete adherence to the comic book is your top priority or if anyone other than Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier or Ian Mckellen as Magneto is near sacrilegious to you.

Entertainment: A
Story: B+
Acting: A
Characters: A
Music: B-
Replay value: A-
"Brains": B-

Thor: Tales of Asgard (2011) direct-to-DVD animation review

Overall verdict: 5.5/10

The Good: Excellent voice acting, snappy well written dialogue, believable "sibling" dynamic between Thor and Loki, emotionally charged finale

The Bad: sub-standard animation and art for a direct to DVD feature, boring action sequences, obvious art errors, frivolous humor, predictable plot,

Current Availability Status: On code 1 DVD at selected DVD stores only or online. Code 3 release pending


******************************Review********************
Behold the innocence of youth. Before he became champion of Asgard, wielder of the mighty Mijolnir, Thor was the epitomy of dopey, pig headed, rich kid.











Likewise, before his brother Loki became Thor's archrival, God of Mischief and master of magic, he was apparently quite the genki fanboy











Before their fateful destinies could be realised, Thor and Loki were best buds, one craving adventure and the other content with a good book and magic lessons. Here was to be the coming of age tale of Asgard's greatest legends; a tale of hope, brotherly love and of innocence lost in the fog of war.

Instead, Thor Tales of Asgard comes across as typical kid friendly fantasy fare which, aside from the emotionally charged finale, would sit well as a disney channel afternoon special. Think Disney's "Young Hercules" or "Tarzan II" or perhaps "Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning". Unsophisticated, child friendly prequels intended for a cheap laugh and netting a little extra cash.

Delayed for almost a year in order to coincide with the release of the blockbuster live action THOR film, Thor Tales of Asgard, originally named "Son of Asgard" is neither a prequel to that film nor is it an adaptation of the stylish "Tales of Asgard" stories by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Instead of chronicling a pivotal event in the life of Thor, like his quest to prove himself worthy of wielding his enchanted hammer, or some important bit of unseen Asgardian history, Tales of Asgard feels like "just another day of adventure"; almost like a premiere episode of a TV cartoon.

Eager to prove himself to his (girl)friend Sif, Thor drags the unwitting Loki to stow away on a vessel belonging to Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg, better known as the Warriors Three.











Thor intends to follow the Warriors Three to the frost giants realm of Jottenheim and find the legendary Sword of Surtur. Soon they discover that tales of the Warriors' adventures have been greatly exaggerated and after a laughable turn of events, convince the three bozos to to join Thor's quest. But Frost Giants do not take kindly to trespassers and a brash act by Thor threatens to plunge the realms into war once more. The only hope for this motley crew of males to return to Asgard is to seek help from the men hating Valkyries. Meanwhile, Odin and his dark Elf court official try to delay the war through diplomacy and deal with a hidden threat from within their own ranks.

Any one who has even the slightest knowledge of the fantasy genre would tell you that something called a "Dark Elf" is never good news. As if the elf's extremely helpful attitude, "smooth talking" british accent and overly humble demeanor did not already scream "I am hiding something and trying my best to look like a good guy". It is so obvious at first glance that it fails to be any sort of spoiler. The same goes for the rest of the plot. If you have seen a typical fantasy themed disney movie, you can spell out the plot here with no problem.

At least the writer, Greg Johnson, manages to pepper the otherwise boring narrative with sharp quippy dialogue. Particular mention goes to the way the brotherly dynamic between Thor and Loki is written, accentuated by the professional voice acting. Only Loki goes through significant character development however which climaxes at the finale and believably leads the boy down his dark future. The development is written as gradual and nuanced, a bright spot of maturity in the otherwise juvenile story.

Thor Tales of Asgard further enhances its "weekend afternoon disney show" feel through its visuals. The japanese "AnswerStudio" is the company behind the animation work and although their stuff is not as stellar as GONZO or Madhouse, their past work on direct to DVD animation like Doctor Strange and The Invincible Iron Man maintained a better that normal standard for a direct to DVD animation. This movie however showcases animation that is no better than an episode of Ben 10 crossed with a cheap imitation of 2002's He-Man animated series artwork. Backgrounds lack detail, sometimes looking no better than a Kindergarten picture book as seen in the picture below.











THe level of detail on characters is no more intricate than saturday morning cartoons and the colors are bright, shiny but at times flat. Even more shocking is the number of obvious animation errors. At some points, the background moves out of sync with the characters feet giving the impression that they are sliding and not walking. Then you have scenes such as the picture below. Look at it and try convincing yourself that the sword blade is not bent at the wrong angle.












Scenes like these are disappointing, showing a lack of quality control on the part of Marvel and stagnant directing on the part of the director Sam Liu. After awesome action heavy shows like "Hulk Vs" and "Planet Hulk", this movie is possibly Director Liu's least inspired piece of work.

With the success of the live action blockbuster THOR, no doubt Thor Tales of Asgard would net in some cash, preying on uninformed kids and their parents who would not know better. It might be worth a download just out of curiosity though. Lacking the thunder of a blockbuster, the quality of a direct to DVD animation and the epic spectacle of the comic books, Thor Tales of Asgard is a tale best left untold.

*****************************Review End******************
Entertainment: C+
Story: B-
Characters: B+
Animation: C
Art: C-
Voice work (english): A-
Music: B-
Replay Value: C+
"Brains": C-












Hammer FAIL












HADOUKEN!!!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) review

Overall verdict: 7/10

The Good: Perfect casting, top notch special effects, timely slapstick comedy, natural cast chemistry, very professional acting, accessible for newcomers to the Franchise, darker in tone than previous installments

The Bad: little character development, somewhat predictable plot, one dimensional supporting characters and villians, thick accents, some exaggerated acting

Current Availability Status: In Cinemas 19 May

******************************Review********************
Making waves at the box office this summer is "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides", the latest addition to Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. With a new director and creative team, this movie discards the storm tossed continuity of the second and third Pirates films and starts off on a clean slate, making the story easily accessible for newcomers to the franchise. For those who have followed the series from Pirates of the Caribbean 1, the movie might come across as rather predictable thanks to the established Jerry Bruckheimer formula of comedy and chaos.

On Stranger tides opens with the eccentric pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow (masterfully played by Johnny Depp), in a bit of a tiff. Without a ship, without a crew, and narrowly escaping imprisonment Jack lands himself into a hunt for the mythical fountain of youth after running into his old love Angelica (Penelope Cruz). But she is not the only one after the fountain. Competition comes in the form of the Spanish armada, a British expedition led by none other than Sparrow's ex-rival Barbossa and the infamous pirate Black Beard. Along the way, we get a tacked on side story about a missionary falling for a mermaid, a surprising father/daughter revelation and a convoluted quest for a variety of items needed for the ritual at the fountain.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides seems like a return to the darker style of the first Pirates movie with voodoo magic, on-screen deaths, and a really disturbing take on Mermaids. However, it retains the needless "side quests" narratives and the unexplained magical mythologies. Stuff like Black Beard's voodoo powers, his magic sword or the fate of Jack's old ship, The Black Pearl, are merely glossed over and never explained. Instead, more time is spent on moving the plot along from on comedic action sequence to another.

Not that it is a bad thing since the comedy scenes, all involving Jack Sparrow, are the highlight of the movie. These include a gut bustingly funny chase through the streets of London and an over-the-top escape from a spanish prison camp. The downside is that Jack is once again reduced to just being "bugs bunny". He is the funny guy who gets into crazy situations. The deceiving, under handed, unpredictable, eccentric scoundrel side of his character is very much downplayed for laughs.

As a result Jack and the rest of the characters come across as nearly one dimensional. Character development is almost non-existent despite having so many characters to choose from. Black Beard could have done well with a sort of emotional redemption arc, or perhaps Barbossa could have been given more depth about why a pirate like him would want to "go legit". There was a hinting of a conflict of principles regarding fate and free will but it was never expounded upon. And of course, Disney has not forgotten about the eye candy vacuum left by the departure of Orlando Bloom and Kiera Nightly from the previous movies. The afore-mentioned missionary and mermaid (played by relatively unknown actors Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey) fill those shoes and deliver the passion-devoid yet mandatory romance subplot. Between the one-note villains and the simplistic heroes, "Predictable" would be the word to describe the plot.

What the film manages to deliver is what made its predecessors such fun to watch in the first place. The unimaginative script is pretty much redeemed thanks to perfect casting and professional, though slightly exaggerated, acting. The production designs, costumes and sets are beautiful as always, as well as the various on-scene locales. They maintain the realistic-styled slant with a gritty, well worn feel mixed with Disney cartoonish colors which succeed in truly immersing the audience into that world. It is a pity though that director Rob Marshall, whose resume encompasses only musicals and small romantic comedies, feels out of his element directing a summer blockbuster. Gone are the wide panning shots and the sweeping camerawork of Gore Verbinski, replaced by Marshall's rather run-of-the-mill directing that fails to instill Pirates of the Caribbean with much needed scope and scale.

More of a comedy with fantasy elements than a fantasy epic, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger tides is sure to entertain with its timely comedy and brisk pace. Compared to previous Pirates of the Caribbean films, it easily ranks higher than the second and third entries but lacks the character development, less complicated plot and scope of the first film "Curse of the Black Pearl". Still, "On Stranger Tides" does not feel like a major turning point or epic life changing event for any of the characters. Then again as Jack says, "It is not the destination, so much as the journey." And this is one entertaining journey which would at very least leave you with a different impression of disney singing mermaids.

*****************************Review End******************

Go For it: if you want to see a return to the darker tone of the first film or if you have never watched previous Pirates of the Caribbean movies and would like to jump into the franchise. Also recommended for fans of good comedy and fans of Johnny Depp
Avoid it: if you expect any character development for the main characters or lack a sense of humor. Also if, heaven forbid, you actually preferred the convoluted, complicated, and "all-over-the-place" lack of focus of the 2nd and 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean films

Entertainment: A
Story: B-
Acting: A
Characters: B
Music: B-
Replay value: B-
"Brains": C

All Star Superman (2011) review

Overall verdict: 7.5/10

The Good: faithful adherance to the narrrative and artstyle of the comic book, epic musical score, timely comedic moments, top notch scripting, near perfect casting, goes in-depth into the characters

The Bad: too faithful to the episodic narrative style of the comic book, few scenes were cut or shortened for time, painted comic colors subsituted with standard animation coloring

Current Availability Status: NOW AVAILABLE IN DVD STORES ISLANDWIDE

******************************Review********************
Media seems obsessed with the Death of Superman. He had a death in Superman Returns, a death in "Superman Doomsday" and now another death in the animated adaptation of Grant Morrison's "All Star Superman" comic book. A seemingly successful rescue of a Dr Quintum's mission to the Sun has saturated Superman's cells with too much solar energy. This is causing rapid cellular deterioration which would eventually lead to his death. With time running out for the man of steel, Superman sets about to put all his affairs in order before he goes while continuing to defend the earth against threats from within and without.

From the get go, All Star Superman feels like a multi episode TV series compressed into a single movie. But really, that is more the fault of the original source material which in fact was meant to be 12 seemingly standalone stories with some of the plot points finally "coming together" in the final issues. While this worked for a bi-monthly comic book series, it does not have the similar effect as an animated movie. Here the film just feels unfocused and rushed, cramming what is supposed to be a year's worth of events into 70 odd minutes. For example, a single fade out later and superman returns to earth after a couple of months to find it take over by a bunch of long lost Kryptonians. An episodic miniseries would have been a better medium to convey the full feel of the original story.

Thankfully The production team's faithfulness to the source material is not entirely a shortcoming. The animated movie not only sticks to the "self-contained stories" format but also the well developed personalities and timeless characterization. Everyone is perfectly cast, bringing the characters to life in a very natural way. James Denton's Superman/Clark Kent might not be the most well acted but thanks to a top notch script, he is possibly the most lovable Superman incarnation second only to Christopher Reeves's live-action portrayal. It is this faithful script, quoting exact lines from the comic, that imbues Superman with just the right level of noble superhuman grandeur mixed with a down to earth homely touch. He is the hero, and the farm boy at the same time. Similarly, Clark Kent's oafish demeanor is comedic yet sincere; his interview with Lex Luthor and subsequent escape from the prison riot caused by a supervillian's escape is possibly the most fun part of the entire movie.

Here is another strength of All Star Superman. It is not a brainless hero brawl like the Superman/Batman animated movies nor is it as dark and edgy as Batman: Under The Red Hood. The story plays out more like a character centered drama that is not afraid to tickle the audience with a few lighthearted moments. The main cast is given great depth and development as we get to know their reasons for doing what they do and the motivations that drive them. Even Luthor gets a heart wrenching moment once you find out that the reason behind his hatred of Superman goes much deeper than just "because he foiled my plans".

Special mention goes to Christopher Drake's soundtrack which is by far his best work to date. His music covers a great range, bringing out the best in the scenes it complements; it is grand, emotional and magical. One might go so far as to say that his score here is actually better than Shirley Walker's stuff from the 90s Superman Animated series, just slightly behind John Williams. (In what is possibly a nod to "The Mummy", the music takes on a very Egyptian Gothic style with the appearance of antagonist Bar-El played by Arnold Vosloo, who also played the main antagonist of "The Mummy".)

There is action, not to worry, a good deal of it. Moi Studios once again perform animation duties, maintaining the smooth character movements seen in their previous productions; smoother than Japanese anime at least and without animation short-cuts. While some backgrounds appear lackluster, The production team's faithfulness to the source material is seen in the character designs which is a slightly streamlined version of Frank Quintley's artwork. Too bad the painted colors by Jamie Grant have been replaced with a very "standard" color palate. The colors here look exactly the same as........as every single DC animated production featuring Superman.

It seems like a farce that the movie stuck so closely to the comic going to great lengths to even replicate whole scenes perfectly yet cut out and streamline a fair bit of material. Perhaps Warner Premiere and Bruce Timm might consider a "directors cut" in which they go back and animate the rest of those scenes like the Bizzaro world, or the visit by Superman from the future. At least the plot threads established throughout the movie are woven together nicely in the end.

There are two ways to see this movie. One, is that this movie is a "All Star Superman lite": a bite sized version of the great graphic novels for the uninitiated which will hopefully entice them to pick up the miniseries (now available in trade paperback form and an "Absolute" collectors edition). The other way to see it is that it is meant to cheese off the long time fans so that those fans will go around saying "the comic is better" and in the end help to drive up publicity for the comic. Both ways, a perfect win-win situation for DC.

Try to enjoy this movie as it is. Of the scenes that were not cut out in production, revel in its loyalty to the original comic. It covers the full range of comedy to tragedy, heroic to humble, life to death.

*****************************Review End******************

Go For it: if you would like to see one of the most faithful comic book animated adaptations to date or if you have not read the original graphic novels and would like to "jump in" without the threat of convoluted comic book continuity
Avoid it: if the few cut scenes would put off your purist heart or if you dont like animation in general


Entertainment: A-
Story: B-
Characters: A
Animation: A-
Art: B+
Voice work (english): B
Music: A-
Replay Value: B
"Brains": B+

Thor (2011) review

Overall verdict: 8/10

The Good: Well cast despite most being relative unknowns, ups the ante on action, gorgeous set designs, costumes that are faithful to the comic, memorable characters, near perfect casting, well developed main protagonist.

The Bad: bad 3D conversion, abrupt ending, did not maximise potential for something truly epic, truncated in some parts, "Michael Bay style" camera-work

******************************Review********************

Blockbuster season thunders in with "THOR", the marvel studios live action comic book adaptation based on Norse Mythology. In a sprawling tale of Gods and Monsters, Marvel studio crafts a realistically human story in the vein of the critically acclaimed "Iron Man".

Stripping away years of convoluted continuity and multiple interpretations, the creative team has combined the best of Thor's comic book incarnations to deliver a film that is both easily accessible to the casual watcher and pleasing to the hardcore comic fan. The only ones it might not please are die hard purists of Norse Mythology, for this is not their noble Viking God of thunder. Marvel's Thor is a proud pompous muscle man with a chip on his shoulder. In his eagerness to prove his might, he shattered a truce between his home realm of Asgard and the dreaded Frost Giants. For his actions, Thor is banished to earth in hopes that his exile would teach him humility and the value of life. Lo and behold, it is revealed that this turn of events was just the first step in a grand scheme by Thor’s brother Loki, whose hidden agenda and ambiguous allegiance fuels much of the plot’s intrigue. On earth, Thor is found and befriended by Jane Foster and her science team while his hammer, Mjolnir ends up in the possession of the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D. In order to return to Asgard, and before he can retrieve his hammer, Thor must first prove himself worthy of his power.

Melding magic and science fiction with comedy and drama, the movie's first strength is in its narrative. It has spectacular special effects but never relies solely on that. Behind the top notch computer graphics beats a story about pride before the fall, about themes as basic as sibling jealousy and about some very human “Gods”. Although blessed with skill and power, Thor, Sif, Loki and The Warriors three never act like immortal deities. They are like Childhood friends, like regular people. They get angry, they laugh, they squabble and they each have their own little quirks that make them memorable. If not for the computer generated scenery and stylish costumes, one would easily forget that these are mythological gods. Though it might seem a bit rushed at points and slow at others, the many plot threads are easy to follow and tie up nicely by the end. Thor himself, played by Chris Hemsworth, goes through some well written character development on his journey to reclaim his godhood.

With near perfect casting, the acting is spot on though Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins (the two more well known stars) seem under utilised as Jane Foster and Odin respectively. The highlight is definitely Tom Hiddleston who plays Loki like an actor playing an actor. You never know if Loki’s words are truth or more trickery for all the world is Loki’s stage and every of his acts is a performance to advance some scheme.

The sharper ones in the audience would no doubt notice similarities between the Thor and Iron Man movies. Both feature a protagonist who is full of himself until he gets taught a lesson and humbles down, both protagonists have issues with their father, both encounter a threat from within their own ranks and both face off against giant machines in a climatic final battle. Thankfully these similarities are only fleeting. Both Thor and Iron Man also benefit from a good deal of well written humour which in Thor’s case involves the banished deity trying to adapt to human life. Much hilarity ensues.

Humour aside, the most important factor for a summer blockbuster is good action. In that regard, Thor delivers with wild abandon complemented by a remarkable soundtrack by Patrick Doyle. Doyle is no stranger to modern magical mythology movies, having scored the likes of Eragon and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Like the music, the film embraces its over-the-top comic book roots, as seen in the amazing production design and costumes. But while the action is big and poised to satisfy the adrenaline craving summer blockbuster crowd, director Kenneth Branagh seems to have become enamoured with the “Michael Bay School of Camera-work”. Tight close ups and shaky-cam neuter the otherwise epic battles. Action scenes like the flashback of Odin’s war, or Thor and his friends’ fighting their way through a Frost giant ambush, all lack a sense of scale and scope. Couple that with an ending that feels too abrupt and one gets the feeling that this is not the best that a “Thor” movie could have been, that Marvel is holding out on the audience, saving the best for later.

Will lightning strike the same spot twice? Will marvel pull off another blockbuster as successful as Iron Man? If the abrupt conclusion of Thor is anything to go by, Marvel seems more interested in generating publicity for their 2012 “Avengers” movie. And that is exactly what this movie feels like, a set up for something bigger on the way.

*****************************Review End******************

Entertainment: A-

Story: B

Acting: A-

Characters: A

Music: A-

Replay value: B

"Brains": B-

Death Race 2 (2010) Unrated review

Overall verdict: 5.5/10

The Good: great action despite small budget, solid production design, clear concise camerawork, stylish

The Bad: almost a clone of its predecessor, under developed characters, little substance

******************************Review********************

The 2008 Death Race film (itself a remake of the 1975 B movie Death Race 2000) was definitely not avant garde cinema. Critics drided it with mixed to negative reviews. It was a loud, visceral, simple action movie; all style, little substance in the grand Paul WS Anderson tradition. Death Race 2 is the cheap direct to video prequel, not a sequel as the title might seem to imply, and it is just more of the same. Even the main characters looks the same only with different names.

Now fans of the 2008 crash and burn thrill ride of a movie are in for a treat here. In Death Race 2, we discover the origins of the dangerous game; how it went from a simple prison fight caught on camera to a full blown TV ratings dependent gladiatorial combat. And then, to boost ratings, they added cars, a military arsenal and the brutal Death Race was born. Anybody remember the cool sounding masked Driver "Frankenstein" who appeared at the beginning of 2008's Death Race? Well here is his origin story. Before he became the famous Frankenstein, Carl Lucas (Luke Goss) was a getaway car driver for a crime boss Markus Kane (Sean bean). A heist gone wrong landed Carl a life sentence at Terminal island penitentiary, a prison famous for its broadcasts of "Death Match". With ratings of Death Match plummeting, one of the organizers "September Jones" witnesses Carl's driving skills and decides to revamp the games into "Death Race". Nine cars, three rounds, five wins to freedom. The no holds barred car-nage has just begun. As Carl puts his skills to the test, his former boss is planning his death, and he has someone on the inside to do it.

Synopsis sounds familiar? To say that the writers were lazy is an understatement. They basically took the exact same character types from the 2008 film and changed their names to be new characters. In other words, we got all the uninspired lines, one dimensional (and slightly racist) characterization, and minimal character development of the original show, but none of the star power the likes of Jason Stratham and Tyrese Gibson. Star power alone was what made the original character bearable and now with that gone, they are not as interesting to watch. Fans would recognize Robin shou and Frederick Koehler reprising their roles of "14K" and "Lists".

The main attraction here has always been the cars and the carnage. Despite having less than one third of the budget of Paul WS Anderson's 2008 film, Death Race 2 does a wonderful job of replicating all the excitement and adrenaline of the races. Perhaps too good a job as some scenes look 100% copied and pasted from that film complete with similar camera angles, same chain of events and even similar lines of dialog. The cars themselves and the sets do not look as well designed as its predecessor but remember, this took place before the 2008 film, and as such cars get rebuilt and the place gets upgraded as the days go by.

With the target audience being those who loved the brainless 2008 Death Race, Death Race 2 delivers no more than what they expect. If you thought its predecessor was bad, Death Race 2 would not change that impression. It is fun, it is violent, it is a glorified B movie just like Roger Corman's DeathRace 2000 and Paul WS Anderson's remake, and it is surprisingly well shot for a direct-to-video film. Definitely worth at least a rental but do familiarize yourself with the 2008 movie before jumping into this.

*******************Review End******************

Go For it: if you are a fan of the original 2008 Death Race movie and would like to see the events that led up to that film

Avoid it: if you expect anything deeper or thought provking than simple, straightforward car on car action

Entertainment: A

Story: B-

Acting: C

Characters: C

Replay value: B

"Brains": C-

Monsters (2010) review

Overall verdict: 8/10

The Good: awesome cast chemistry, impressive visuals despite low budget, solid emotional core, very effecting directing,

The Bad:policital and social commentary ineffectively conveyed, slow moving plot,

Current Availability Status: Coming soon to DVD and blu-ray

******************************Review********************
The one thing worse than a misleading movie trailer that gives one false expectations, is a misleading movie title.

For a movie entitled "Monsters", there is VERY LITTLE monster appearances. There does not even seem to be a hidden second meaning in the title (a smarter man would make a movie titled "Monsters" and have it refer to the monstrous nature of humans who mete out atrocities on one another.). Therefore, calling this a monster film with a hidden social commentary is stretching it at best. Here is a human interaction drama of two strangers thrown together by unforeseen circumstances, facing unknown dangers against the backdrop of a world at constant war with a race of giant alien squid creatures.

Six years have passed since a NASA space probe brought alien life to earth. The aliens have been quarantined to an "Infected Zone" between Mexico and USA. Into this world comes news photographer Andrew Kaudler who is tasked to safely bring his employer's daughter, Samantha Wynden across the Mexican border back to USA. A series of mishaps leaves them with only the option of traveling through the monster infested zone where danger lurks within the deep jungles. So in what can only be described as a homage to Jurassic Park and Apocalypse Now, the duo take a perilous journey upriver into the heart of the Infected Zone.

Apparently shot on a shoestring budget of barely half a million dollars, "Monsters" would feel like a Discovery Channel travelogue if it were not for the amazing chemistry between the two core characters. This very realistic interplay as the two characters get to learn about each other saves this film from becoming just another road trip flick.

Director Gareth Edwards has a keen talent for maintaining a palpable sense of tension and danger in slower scenes that would otherwise be considered boring in less expert hands. Allowing the camera to linger on a scene while the sound fades until only the haunting musical score is audible serves to add a great emotional impact to such scenes. Edwards uses a very "documentary" style of filming that revels in properly fleshing out the sorry state of a world in constant fear of the unknown and border towns who live in the shadow of death; again, much like a travelogue. There are some hints of jabbing at American immigration policies, USA's reliance on high tech warfare to solve international problems and the intolerance toward "alien" immigrants but these are only hinted at and barely given emphasis. Stuff like "District 9" handled those themes a lot better.

Do not expect a movie the likes of Cloverfield or Godzilla when going to watch "Monsters". It is less like a monster movie and more like a very satisfying, emotional human drama about an unlikely couple bonded together by the desire to return home to their loved ones. We get a look ingo their anguish, their sorrow, their hopes and dreams that they go through along the way. Here is a showcase of the very best of what can be achieved in an independent film, easily besting many of its bigger budgeted counterparts.

(Oh, and there are giant enemy squid creatures conveniently appearing only in murky night time darkness to conceal the low budget CGI rendering.)

*****************************Review End******************

Go For it: if an independent film filled with human drama, tension and a character centered story are your cup of tea
Avoid it: if you are expecting some big action packed monster mash like Godzilla or alien invasions like Independence Day.

Entertainment: B
Story: A-
Acting: A
Characters: A
Replay value: B
"Brains": B-