Ant-Man Spoiler Free Review

From Keefer Madness on Friday, click on the link below for the spoiler free Ant-Man review.  

Ant-Man Review 

Rich Reviews: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Avengers: Age of Ultron aka The Second Avengers aka Avengers 2.  Call it what you want as the summer movie season of 2015 has officially arrived with the release of the most anticipated film since... Avengers 1?

There was a lot to like in this mega sequel.  Here's a breakdown of the good, bad (spoiler: not much bad), and everything else. 

Introductions Are Over

The Avengers know each other now. Comic book movies often are better the second time around because you needed to spend (waste?) so much time on the origin story. Sometimes that is well spent but it can cut into the action, set up of villians, etc. 

Captain America, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye, and Black Widow have been working together for awhile. (Proved by some of their sick combo moves in combat.)

Still Some Intros

It can't be a comic book movie without bringing in some more characters. The Avengers core is well established but they chose to add even more from the vast Marvel universe.  

Ultron is obviously the bad guy.  More on him in a second. 

Quicksilver (who has nothing to do with the same character as seen in X-Men: Days of Future Past, licensing is trying to ruin these movies.) is here along with his twin sister Scarlet Witch.  

Those three have all been shown in the trailer, I won't spoil any other new or call-back characters.  

Action!

The battle scenes were turned up to 11.  Tons of action, with some beautiful team-ups and what have you.  Very enjoying to the eye.  Technology is something!

Imagination Is A Must

If you like these kinds of movies you obviously are good with things that aren't super believable. (Thor's story, Captain America's story, Hulk's story....) But you, me, we've all bought in on this.  We believed Loki was a God-like villain from another planet and we were on board. 

Well, Ultron?  He might make you say, really?  This is happening?  Everyone is ok with this as reality?  I got over it.  Didn't take long. But it did feel more science-fiction than many other Marvel or DC movie. 

Love Story?

It's not that bad, but a a few of the characters they try to go more personal with them.  I don't need romance in this, however an attempt to strengthen the characters outside of fight scenes makes sense. I'll allow it.  Some of it. 

What's Next?

Spoiler free: they do a nice job setting things up for the future. A few different ways, really.  

There's a quick clip following the first thing of credits.  No need to stay after the long-ass credits.  There's nothing there. (Unless the guy who cleans the place lied to us...)

Bottom Line

I'm not a harsh judge when it comes to these movies, but it's legit. Better than the first and that says something. 

Rating: 9/10

Rich Reviews: Gotham (First Episode)

I should start by saying that I am obsessed with Batman.  I've read a ton of the comic books (or graphic novels, because I'm an adult), I actually like all of the movies (well the Clooney one was a piece of trash but I still found some enjoyment in it.)  The video games are some of the best ever and how about the cartoon growing up?

I still find myself more a fan of Marvel Comics (X-Men, Fantastic 4, Avengers, Iron Man, Daredevil, Spider-Man, etc., etc.) compared to DC (Batman, Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman... Aquaman?).  But Batman, and his cast of villains, is my favorite.  The comic books graphic novels are off the charts good.  It's not just Batman, but the characters and the setting that make it great.  Gotham City is the best location in either comic universe and the Batman supporting cast is unbeatable.

So, Fox released Gotham on Monday night.  The show is NOT about Batman, instead the origin of some of the notable characters.  Yes Bruce Wayne is in it, but the show begins with the infamous moment of his parents, Thomas & Martha, being gunned down in an alley during a mugging.

If this show lasts long enough maybe we will see Batman, but that's not the selling point here.  Jim Gordon is the main character, his early days on the GCPD.  We also see young villains in their infancy stages and roles within Gotham.

One criticism that is fair, is it seems like they are trying to shoehorn classic characters into the story.  Without giving anything away, there is at least one character in episode one that seems really forced.  Maybe they go somewhere with it, we'll see.

There are so many stories already written, the writers of the show need to pick and choose and create their own without getting buried and confusing the viewer.  I just hope they don't feel the need to throw villain after villain after villain and try to tie them all in together at such young ages.   To be fair, if they did not include any of the classic enemies I'd be saying, "Hey, where are the bad guys I know?"

The first episode showed a lot of promise.  The acting is good.  There was action, and they didn't drag their feet in setting up the plot for the season.

I'm in.  Of course it would have to be AWFUL for me not to be.


GOTHAM - Mondays on Fox

Rich Reviews: X-Men: Days of Future Past

X-Men: Days of Future Past is the 7th film in the X-Men series following X-Men (2000), X2 (2003), X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), X-Men: First-Class (2011), and The Wolverine (2013).

I've seen them all.  If they make 7 more, I'll see those too.  So, granted, I am partial to the X-Men.  But here are my thoughts on the latest from this great comic book movie franchise.

X-Men + Inception + The Terminator = X-Men: Days of Future Past

And I didn't even really like Inception.  But in this case, time travel was in place of dream travel to change the future.  This movie is all about time.  Just read the title out loud and try to figure it out without ending up in a mental pretzel.

The gist of the plot is the X-Men are in the future fighting Sentinels who are destroying mutants and the world.  They need to send someone back to the past in order to prevent these bad boys from being developed, thus changing how things shake up.  Terminator, Inception, etc., etc.

They've combined actors/characters from the original trilogy with actors/characters from the prequel and tried to make sense of it all.  Because of the number of characters and storylines some of it had to be left out.  But I found it hard to complain about too much.  Sure there are some plot holes and questions left unanswered, but the movie had a strong story, action, and everything else you look for in a comic book film, including some solid cameos.

The truth is, X-Men: The Last Stand was a mess, and they tried/needed to clean it up.  A lot of what you had here was dealing with that film and some of the hangups in this one are due to that one.  Make sense?

Bottom line, I enjoyed the hell out of it.  Very entertaining.  It has me thinking back to all the previous X-Men movies (sure some plot holes annoy me, but not enough to ruin it).  I liked it a lot more than Last Stand and both Wolverine films.  The other three movies were all great, and after just one viewing of Days of Future Past, this one is right up there.

I need to talk to someone who has seen ALL of these movies, and I need that right now.  Oh, like all Marvel movies, stay through the end credits for a little sneak peak.

Final Rating: 9/10

CLICK HERE FOR THE KEEFER MADNESS X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST REVIEW

Rich Reviews: The Wolverine

The Wolverine is a solid comic book movie. It's not Dark Knight, Iron Man, or even X-men, but it's also not a Spider-Man 3 or Ghost Rider. Hugh Jackson is back for the 5th time in this role (I guess 6th if you count his cameo in X-Men: First Class). He's good. The story and action is far better in this one compared to the last stand alone Wolverine movie (X-Men Origins: Wolverine).

This is more in the vain of a Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor... where you isolate on just the one super hero, with the villain not being a major comic character (like a Joker or Green Goblin). The Wolverine still holds up, solid action throughout and actually some continuity to the previous X-Men films.

It's over 2 hours long but doesn't feel like that, and for the first time you get the impression that Wolverine, the character, can carry a movie. He's always been "part of the X-Men' but clearly he is just as popular and intriguing as any other super hero.

I'll give it a 7.5/10.  (But I'm a sucker for comic book movies.)

Rich Reviews: The Conjuring

The Conjuring combines a good ghost story, an exorcism movie, with a dash of "based on a true story," and the result is a damn good horror flick.  In fact, it's one of the best scary movies of the last decade.  It's not corny, (like so many in the genre), it doesn't rely on "pop-out" scares (although there are some).  It has a solid, intriguing story (based on true events?) and the acting is tops.

Vera Farminga (Running Scared, The Departed, Bates Motel) and Patrick Wilson (Hard Candy, Insidious, Little Children) are paranormal investigators who go around helping out people who might have ghosts, demons, or what not bugging them.

They play Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are real people, and actually investigated the "Amittyville Horror" case.  Small world, right?

But in this film, the Warrens are sought out to help the Perron family.  The Perrons are a big family.  Father, played by Ron Livingston (Office Space, Swingers), mother played by Lili Taylor (The Haunting, Ransom) and their 5 daughters.  The Perrons move into a big old house, and let's face it, they are not alone.

I'd say the movie starts out a little slow, although most suspenseful ones do.  It picks up with some real scares and even a couple "chills" moments.

I recommend seeing this one in the theaters.  I'll go 8/10.

The bigger question is, where does it rank amongst horror movies in the past 5-10 years?

Off the top of my head the only ones better since 2003 are...

The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Saw II (2005)
Planet Terror (2007) (If this even counts as horror.)

That might be it.  Others in the conversation include:

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)
Scream 4 (2011)
Feast (2005)
The Descent (2005)
Let Me In (2010)
The Strangers (2008)
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Rich Reviews: This Is The End

Been a long time since we've had a Rich Reviews: on the old blog.

"Awesome."
"Best comedy in years."
"Hilarious."
"Loved it."
"I want to see it again."

All of those superlatives right there?  Go ahead and attach my name at the end of them.  This Is The End, was fantastic.  A must see for sure.  Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride were all great in it and there's a bunch of cameos.  I thought McBride was the best part of the movie, but to each their own.

I was trying to think of the last great comedy I saw... it was probably MacGruber which came out 3 years ago.  I never cried laughing in This Is The End, but it's consistently funny and well worth the price of admission.  

It's been out for a couple weeks now, so you know the plot.  All these guys are playing themselves and they're at a party when the end of the world breaks out.  How they deal with it?  Boom, there's your movie.  I had high expectations going in and it lived up to it.  They reference each other's movies in it a lot too which I enjoyed.  Great stuff all around.

Rich Reviews: The Dark Knight Rises

Chances are you have already seen The Dark Knight Rises.  Well I didn't see it til this past Saturday, so here is my review anyway.

The Dark Knight Rises is good.  In fact it's very good, but not great.  I preferred The Dark Knight to any other in this trilogy or any Batman film prior and now sense.  This most recent installment was facing some tough obstacles right out of the gate.  The main villain in the film, Bane, is some what limited.  He talks through a mask with a funny accent, making him difficult to understand at times.  Bane made his comics debut in 1993, that's more than 50 years after Batman was introduced and certainly long after many of his most infamous counterparts hit the big time (Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc.) 

That is not my main complaint, as "newer" villains can certainly be very complex, entertaining and all of that.  (In fact, I wish Harley Quinn was somehow included in The Dark Knight along with the Joker).  But Banes story, although interesting in its own right, could never live up to The Joker, or even Two-Face, The Riddler (if done the right way) and others.  Tom Hardy did a great job playing Bane, Christopher Nolan utilized Bane probably as well as you could, and still its a far cry from The Joker (Heath Ledger's performance, combined with the history of the character, his standing amongst all-time super villains, and that incredible relationship between Batman and him.). 

So going into the movie, I knew that the best Bane could only go so far, and I was proven right.  My other complaint going in was the decision to cast Anne Hathaway as Catwoman.

Don't get me wrong, she is a great actress, probably a better actress than any in the age bracket for this Catwoman.  But she's not hot.  I don't see it.  Mila Kunia, Natalie Portman, Megan Fox (after 10 years worth of acting lessons... ok then she's out), would have been better.  But the truth is, Hathway was fine. 

I thought they could have explained Catwoman and Bane's stories a little bit more, that might have helped with both of them for me.  No spoilers here, but the film takes place 8 years after the last, and these two new characters seem to be thrown in a bit. 

I understand that The Dark Knight Rises is meant as a conclusion to the trilogy.  With that said, I felt it served as a pretty good wrap up.  It's a very solid film both for the Batman die hards and the comic book novices out there.  I recommend it, but don't think there is any way to compare it to the Ledger driven Dark Knight. 

8/10

(Batman Begins probably gets an 8/10, I'll have to see Rises again to really break the tie and determine which is better.  The Dark Knight is definitely 10/10.)

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: The Cabin in the Woods

Rich Reviews returns with a vengeance this week, with the brand new horror movie to hit theaters. I saw The Cabin in the Woods yesterday at a relatively crowded 5:15pm showing. I was not surprised when I heard that the horror movie finished 3rd at the Box Office this weekend with $14.8 million, behind The Three Stooges (#2, $17.1 million) and The Hunger Games (#1, $21.5 million). For a full review on The Hunger Games just scroll down.

The tagline for The Cabin in the Woods states: "Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods." But perhaps even more fitting was the simpler tagline, "You think you know the story, think again." Nice.

Now I don't want to ruin anything for you, as the main reason I saw it on opening weekend was so that some asshole on twitter didn't spoil it for me before I could see it. So here is my, spoiler avoided, review.

The Cabin in the Woods deserves instant credit for not being a remake or a sequel, which seems to be the only kind of horror movies being made right now. Fun fact, this movie was actually made back in 2009, then they wanted to postpone the thing to make it 3D (really happy that didn't happen). MGM then had financial issues and the film was put on hold and eventually picked up by a new distributor, and bang April 13, 2012 (Friday the 13th of all days).

What's great about Cabin is that it takes a very simple, played out, overdone, idea (college kids stranded somewhere like the woods- see: Friday The 13th(s), Evil Dead(s), Cabin Fever, Wrong Turn(s), Texas Chainsaw Massacre(s), House of 1,000 Corpses, Blair Witch Project, etc., etc., etc., but it introduces elements that aren't tired. Again, I don't want to ruin anything, and simply by saying it's not just a slasher movie may give something away, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Horror movie fans will really appreciate this film. Knowledge of the genre, which has grown stale for the most part, makes Cabin all the better. It goes in a direction you can not prepare for. As I watched yesterday I couldn't help but think, "smart" the movie was "smart." It is a game-changer. The creators obviously know the genre, and make references to past classics, while completely ripping the lid off a brand new idea. However, only time will tell on how its remembered in horror movie history.

I don't think the characters will be as iconic as those from Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm St., Evil Dead, Scream, etc., but let's give it some time. And I'm talking about both the villains and the protagonists. It took those movies some time to really take their place in film lour. Although the dude who plays Thor, Chris Hemsworth is in it as the typical jock with the hot girlfriend.

It's not fair to really rank a film after just seeing it once. But I might as well try. I would not put it in my Top 10 Horror all-time, but, how many have been better since 2000? 10? 5? None?

If you like horror movies you will like Cabin in the Woods, if you don't like them, you still might. You will definitely be talking about it for awhile after you see it. Are there plot holes or unanswered questions, you bet, like most scary movies, but it's a fresh take and fun as hell. Like all great films of the genre, there are some laughs combined with a few scares and crazy kills.

In my Theater-Netflix-TV-Don't Bother scale: I have to go with Theater.

Rich Reviews: The Cabin in the Woods = 9/10

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: The Hunger Games

Sucked.

Rich Reviews: Scream 4

"What's your favorite scary movie?"

Well mine is probably Scream. (The original Halloween and Devil's Rejects are up there.) There is a lot I liked about the first installment, particularly the way it revitalized the horror genre. The characters in Scream were self aware, they watched movies and openly discussed them. The "what if you were in a horror movie" angle. As a bit of a film dork myself, I enjoyed all the tip-of-the-caps to previous movies, specifically legendary horror classics.

Say what you want about the original, but it was very smart. It is easy to make fun of it now, and trust me all of my friends do for liking it so much, however I think it still holds up today, 15 years after it came out. The story is solid, the characters are well developed, and most importantly for a horror movie, it's both scary and entertaining.

What about the sequels? Well at least all of the references to movies were still there. They even made a point to say in Scream 2 that sequels suck, and "by definition alone they are inferior films." I thought 2 had it's moments, some good ideas, I enjoyed it.

Scream 3 did not have the same writer (Kevin Williamson) as the first two, but it acted as the finale of a trilogy. Again, like the second film referencing other sequels, they devoted some time in 3 to describe trilogies, different rules, rare in the horror field, etc. Again, it had it's moments, but clearly the films go, A, B, C (if you're grading at home).

Alright enough about the first 3 films of the franchise, I just wanted to point out that I am a huge fan, it's my favorite franchise of horror films (beating out Halloween and Saw). So needless to say I was pumped when I heard they were making a 4th (with director Wes Craven, writer Kevin Williamson, and stars Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette).



I was busy opening weekend, if not I would have gone, seriously. Anyway, the girlfriend and I were 2 of I'd say 10-12 people in the audience for a Wednesday night showing at 7:30pm. That's not surprising as it made only 18.7 million in its opening weekend. Not what they were looking for. (Scream 2 made 33 million opening weekend, while Scream 3 drew 33.4.)



Scream 4 takes place 10 years after the end of Scream 3. Gail Weathers (Cox) is now Gail Riley and is married to Sheriff Dewey Riley (Arquette) in Woodsboro (the original town). Sidney Prescott (Campbell) comes back to town to promote a book she wrote, and next thing you know people start getting stabbed. They introduce a bunch of new characters, lots of high school kids, some new cops, and you got yourself a cast, where not only can anyone die, but anyone can be the killer.



It's a classic "who done it/ who is doing it." I tried figuring out who did it for probably a full hour, I won't spoil anything here.

But was it good? In a word, eh. I didn't hate it, that might be the big Scream fan in me talking. For a movie that was 10 years in the making, it was a let down. You got to think, if Kevin Williamson spent 10 years on this it was going to be really good. I wonder if he spent 10 hours on it.

The first movie was so different and so smart, this movie tries to hard and comes up short. There was to much of the, "well that was how it worked then, so now it is like this, so we need to expect that, and everything is different while being the same." What? And they should have spent more time developing a true story instead of just upping the kill count and trying to fool you on who the killer(s) is/are.

In the end, it's no where near the as good as the first one, and doesn't even rival the second. I'd have to watch it again before I say for sure it's worse than 3, but I feel like I could do a solid debate on either side of 3 & 4 for which is better. If you happen to be a big fan of the series, it's worth a watch, but go in with low expectations. If you don't like these movie, you didn't read this far anyway.

When To Watch It Scale


The WTWIS is broken down to the following 4 categories...

-Theater
-Netflix
-TV
-Don't Bother

Although I was a bit disappointed, I will go with "Netflix" for Scream 4. (The TV version, unless on HBO will be edited pretty bad I imagine.)

Alright, there you have it. Hope this helps. If you saw it feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you thought or e-mail me at sportsbrief@gmail.com

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: The Fighter

The Fighter tells the story of Lowell, Mass, boxer Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his rise to fame along with his relationship with half-brother Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale). The audience is introduced to Ward as just a hard working guy in a tough town in Massachusetts. He's lost 3 fights in a row and is considering giving up boxing for good. His brother Eklund, a former boxer with hopes of a comeback of his own, encourages Ward to stick with it. Eklund's support proves to be a blessing and a curse.

The film stands out because of it's amazing cast and acting performances. Walhberg was nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Actor, Bale for Supporting Actor. But it wasn't just a male dominated show. Amy Adams (Ward's girlfriend) and Melissa Leo (Ward's mom) both were deservedly nominated for Best Supporting Actress. I don't know if either of them will win, they could, but I can promise you Bale cleans up the Globes, Oscars, People's Choice, Sports Brief Picks, you name it.

Bale's depiction of Dicky Eklund is nothing short of fantastic. I have not been as impressed with a supporting character since Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight, which he starred in along side Bale. Eklund was the previous "Pride of Lowell," with his claim to fame being he knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard, or did he slip? Either way Eklund was a hero in the working class town of Lowell. Eklund, however, turned to drugs and was a flat mess. Bale made a character very likable despite so many destructive acts. Dicky was/is charismatic even with all his faults and Bale pulls it off with perfection.

Without a doubt Bale steals the show, but The Fighter still lives up to it's title with a number of great boxing sequences. I thought the fights in Ali, with Will Smith were pretty good, these are better, and they don't have the advantages that a Muhammad Ali film has. Unless you are a die hard boxing fan you don't know most of the guys Ward fought on his way to the top. Walhberg, a known boxing fan himself, does a great job in this scenes. I would be surprised if he wins any awards for this performance, but I do believe the nomination is justified.

I recommend this movie for everyone, clearly not just a boxing film. Family is one of the central themes as well, and the aforementioned acting in it makes it worth while for any movie buff. Also if you are one of those people who has to watch all the Academy Award nominated films, you might as well get this one out of the way now because it will surely be well represented.

Keefe's Call: 8.6/10

Rich Reviews: Trick 'r Treat

Rich Reviews is back with a special Halloween Edition. I recently saw the direct-to-DVD film Trick ‘r Treat. It stars Dylan Baker (Dr. Connors in the Spidermans) and Anna Paquin (True Blood and X-Men). First, a little back story. The movie was made back in 2007 and scheduled for a Halloween release. However, Saw IV was opening the same time, from a different production company and they feared getting smoked at the Box Office.

The idea then became to move it to an October 2008 release, but that also didn’t happen. Much of the production team on Trick ‘r Treat, including producer Bryan Singer, who directed Superman Returns worked on the Man of Steel sequel, which was a failure. This may have been another reason that Warner Bros. decided to avoid a wide release, or a theatrical release all together.

So you may have been as surprised as me to see previews on TV for Trick ‘r Treat this month and have the commercial end with “Now Available on DVD.” I had never heard of it, it had a couple major movie stars, and they seem to release a lot of horror movie junk, so what was the deal? I did 2 minutes of research and that’s what I found.

As for the film itself, Baker plays a single dad who is a high school principal and a… serial killer. Paquin plays a college student virgin, there’s some kids who play a horrible prank, a young couple, a weird old man who lives alone (Brian Cox), and this little creep kid/man that seems to be everywhere (pictured above). Instead of focusing on just 1 story they bounce around to about 5 and try to have them overlap when they can with characters from other stories in the background here and there.

There are some good ideas within the stories, but for the most part it just doesn’t work. I was confused at parts, and it seemed to either over explain certain things or completely under explain them.

Best part? The run time, only 82 minutes. That’s like a long episode of The Wire, expect no where near as good. There were some really good death scenes… and I’m still talking about The Wire.

Trick ‘r Treat did bring some uniqueness which is very rare for horror, and since it was less than an hour and a half, I’m not pissed off that I sat through it. Ultimately they did make the right decision by not putting it in theatres. It’s not worth that, probably not worth renting (can you still rent movies?), I did Netflix it, but you might not want to take up the top spot in the queue with it. If it comes on TV next Halloween and you have nothing to do, I mean nothing, there’s no MLB playoffs, NFL, college football, NBA opening week, etc., then feel free to give it a watch and let me know what you think.

In the end Trick ‘r Treat was a lot more Trick than Treat.

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: Obsessed

In a word: Decent

In several words: On the surface, Obsessed seems like a jv 2009 version of Fatal Attraction, which is still keeping men from cheating on their wives to this day. But of course, it is different than that. I'm not going to give anything away here. Essentially a successful guy is married to Beyonce and they have a 2 year old son. Ali Larter is a temp at the guy's office and is instantly interested in him. She's a bit crazy, Beyonce is a bit jealous, and you've got yourself movie. The guy finds himself caught in the middle of Ali Larter and Beyonce, not sure how many people are feeling sorry for him.

The film (#1 at the box office this weekend) banked on the following: 1. Women bringing their guys to it, so they can say, "you better not cheat on me, cause this will happen" and 2. Guys wanting to go to see Ali Larter and Beyonce. In this regard, it worked on both fronts. There were couples, groups of girls, and groups of dudes at the Sunday evening show I took in.

Ali Larter is worth the price of omission. Unless it's night time at an overpriced city theater. Then maybe you should wait til video, or find a cheaper matinee. Bottom line it was predictable and hurt itself with a PG-13 rating. Sure they'll probably end up making more money at the box office, because a larger amount of people are allowed to see it, but I think it suffered. Fatal Attraction sure as hell wasn't rated PG-13, and this shouldn't have been either.

The best part, beside the crazy Ali Larter, was unfortunately the previews. Check out the trailers for Orphan and Drag Me To Hell. Damn they look scary.

Orphan:

Drag Me to Hell:

Rich Reviews: The Dark Knight

Is there a better comic book movie? I haven’t seen one. Simply put The Dark Knight is one of the best movies in years. The sequel to Batman Begins took home an opening weekend record of $155+ million. It was one of the most hyped up films in recent memory and more than lived up to it. I never wanted it to end. I’m not sure I have a single thing to complain about. It’s easy to get let down by a movie after you’ve waited so long to see it, but that was not the case here. I want to see it again.

Christian Bale already became my favorite Batman following the last film. With all due respect to Michael Keaton, Bale was just better. He was a comparable Bruce Wayne, and a far superior Batman. Both men were better for the role than Val Kilmer and not even close to the forgettable effort my George Clooney in Batman & Robin. Bale brought the same intensity to his Batman and cockiness and swagger to his Wayne from the first. Bale’s stat line would be 2-2, 2 HR.

Director Christopher Nolan certainly made sure to put the “dark” in Dark Knight. At times I was almost surprised the film was rated PG-13. I guess as long as you don’t drop F bombs or show boobs anything can avoid the R rating. Clearly the movie executives wanted to make sure it wasn’t an R so it could capture the highest grossing opening weekend, but you could see how they could have crossed a line and just made it over the top. Perhaps an unrated DVD is in the future? But the film still delivered with implied violence and excellent camera work.

What put this movie over the top was the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. A year or two ago when I read that Ledger agreed to play the part, I admit I was very skeptical. How could he pull this off? I mean, Jack Nicholson was the Joker. It would be like recreating Star Wars with a new Han Solo or Ace Ventura with a different…Ace Ventura. Looked like an up hill struggle. But as you have seen, whether in the theater or on the previews, they just made him crazier, scarier, and well darker.

This ain’t your father’s Joker. Ledger portrays an absolute psycho path who has nothing to lose. His makeup is fantastic, and his performance is one of the best villains I have ever seen on screen. As I have mentioned before other super hero movies like Iron Man or Hulk lack popular/ fascinating villains. It’s the exact opposite in The Dark Knight. You’ll find yourself more interested in the Joker and even the chilling reincarnation of Two-Face more than Batman. And it’s no fault of Batman’s because he too is very good.

The acting is unparalleled for the typical comic book movie. I enjoy this films so much I always over look the less than stellar performances by the actors/actresses in movies such as X-Men or Fantastic 4. The Dark Knight is on par with any other Oscar nominated film. Bale, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman reappraise their roles from the 1st film along with the additions of Ledger, Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent/ Two-Face), and Maggie Gyllenhaal (in for Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes.) The cast is a Dominique Wilkins slam dunk. Wind mill style.

What more can I say about it? It’s one of the best movies I have seen in a while, I recommend it to everyone and anyone, whether you’re a comic fan or not. Even though I assume most of you have seen the film, I didn’t want to get into any kind of spoilers, but please leave a comment with your thoughts on the movie or any questions you may have.

Final Rating: 10/10

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: The Incredible Hulk

I recently saw the newest marvel creation, The Incredible Hulk. This release comes 5 years after the 2003 version called simply Hulk. That Eric Bana led film had a bigger opening weekend ($62+ million compared to $55+ million), but no where near the stellar ratings. I guess the plan was to take a better actor (Edward Norton) and throw the “incredible” description in front and hope for the best. Well in its first two weekends at the box office, The Incredible Hulk has yet to reach the $100 million mark ($96.5), something that Iron Man surpassed it opening weekend.

I’ve got good news and bad news concerning my review. What do you want first? Ok, the bad news is I have not seen the 2003 Hulk, therefore can not compare the two. The good news? I have seen just about every other comic book movie that’s come out since X-Men in 2000. And simply put, it’s not the best, and it’s not the worst.

I was never a huge fan of the Hulk character, one of the early creations for Stan Lee, rather than simply being a mutant like the X-Men, Bruce Banner needed a reason why he became the Hulk. This film does not show exactly how it happened, instead makes references to the Gamma Rays, and how it went down. To me, it was going to be difficult for the Hulk to carry an entire movie. He’s not exactly with the Avengers… yet.

Similar to Iron Man, the villains are not as well known as other comic book characters. The first villain is essentially General Ross (William Hurt), who wants to capture the Hulk despite his daughter’s (Liv Tyler) attachment to him. The super villain in the film becomes Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) who morphs into Abomination. Comic book fans will recognize this monster, but there is only one subtle mention of his name. The Hulk and Abomination have an epic battle where you can see where the $125 million went in making the movie. There are many comparisons to The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man; on purpose I’m sure, but none more than their main villains. The Iron Monger is basically a guy who finds similar powers to Iron Man then boom a fight. Abomination is like a roided up Hulk (pretty crazy right) and then boom they fight. It’s like they have the same play book.


One of the best parts of the entire movie, and it’s not even a spoiler because it’s in some of the trailers now, is when Robert Downey Jr. reappraises the role of Tony Stark to meet with General Ross. I have been pushing for some sort of “Team Up” since the first Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Punisher. Get these guys in the same movie! You saw in the X-Men series references to other characters who weren’t in that particular film. This is something all comic fans thoroughly enjoy. In addition to Tony Stark, you can find mentions of S.H.I.E.L.D., (like in Iron Man) and Nick Fury (also in Iron Man). All I’m going to say is if the Hulk and Iron Man join forces with Nick Fury and others (maybe Captain America) that could be one hell of a combined sequel.


But that’s not always a great sign when I’m looking forward to the next movie more than I am enjoying the current one. Like I said The Incredible Hulk was right in the middle as far as comic book movies are concerned. No surprise Edward Norton was great, and he made the Hulk character stand up to an admitted non-Hulk fan for nearly 2 hours. If you saw Iron Man I recommend seeing this one, at least before the mega-sequel comes out.




Final Rating: 7.5/10

-Keefe

Rich Reviews: The Strangers

-Keefe

My girlfriend and I recently saw the new horror sensation The Strangers. The previews said it all about this film, or so I thought. Two people alone in the middle of no where get messed with by three people in masks. Can’t miss right? The trailer legitimately scared me. I would tell people at work to stop whatever they were doing and check out the preview for The Strangers. They would go to their computers and watch it. When they came back, jaws dropped, pale faced, and often with a change of pants. It was that good. If the preview came on while I was watching TV late at night, I would have to change the channel. They already hooked me, I didn’t need to scare myself again. I was excited to see it. Like a 21 year old Mike Tyson or 41 year old Barry Bonds this was a rock solid home run.

Give the marketing department a lot of credit for the trailer. This was the sole reason I had to see this movie. In fact, more often than not, the preview is what makes or breaks one’s decision to hit the theater. Few exceptions to this rule include comic book or other well known stories coming to the big screen. You say Spiderman or Ironman, go ahead and show 90 seconds of Tony Stark looking at his suit, and I’ll still run out on opening night to see it. Or if Vince Vaughn (or your favorite actor/actress) is in a new film, don’t think the preview will detour you, you’re going to see it. Case in point, I’ll probably see Zohan just cause of Sandler. But if someone said there’s a movie coming out called the Strangers and it’s about people in a house with weirdos outside, you’d say ok… when’s it going to be on TV? But then you see this preview and it’s, when can we go?

Unfortunately horror movie fans this one could not live up to the hype. It reminds me of the Dave and Dan situation with Reebok prior to the 1992 Summer Olympics. Maybe the trailer set the bar too high (much like the bar set on the pole vault that Dan couldn’t get over thus failing to qualify), and there was no way the actual movie could live up to it. How could extrapolate that 90 seconds into 90 minutes? Well I’m not sure they did. Simply, it was not as scary as the preview, and as the movie went along it became pretty predictable.

It was not a complete failure though. There were a bunch of “what are they doing? I wouldn’t do that”- moments, but what horror movie doesn’t have that? They had some unique ideas (no spoilers), which is saying something in this day and age of remakes and copy cats. The Strangers can not be put in the same class of newer horror films such as The Devil’s Rejects, Saw, The Descent, or even House of 1,000 Corpses. With that said it was better than many others including the new Black Christmas, See No Evil, Feardotcom, The Grudge, and The Grudge 2.

I didn’t hate it. In the range of horror movies out there today it ranks somewhere in the middle, and that would have been fine if I wasn’t so pumped up to see it. Maybe I have to see it again, I don’t know. I’d like to get someone else’s perspective on it (besides my girlfriend, whose thoughts you can read below), and see what you think.

Final rating: 6/10; probably rent, netflix, download for free, or whatever it is you do.

This is what the girlfriend thought of The Strangers:

Review of The Strangers: 1 estrella

What a complete let down. The plot was horrible; they did not develop any of the characters and the clincher… it was not scary! Liv Tyler barely spoke 5 words throughout the movie, there was little dialogue, and little scares.

My brief synopsis of the film: They (Liv and her boyfriend not sure his name not memorable enough) come home from an evening out, I think it was a friend’s wedding, they are staying at a remote summer home, and strangers terrorize them. I did not go into the movie with high expectations, even though the previews left me quite intrigued.

With that being said I really love a good horror flick, I enjoy the suspense but this movie did nothing for me. In fact my pulse did not rise over 75 the entire time. I was more scared of the teenage boy sitting by himself at the movie. I was completely paranoid he was going to shoot up the place halfway through the movie. To make matters worse the screen went black at the end of the movie, technical difficulty I suppose or the teenage employee/s up in the cinema stand had lit the reel on fire, not really sure, but it really made the movie that much worse when we had to wait for the movie to restart to find out the ending did nothing to make the 90 minutes any better or any more frightening. “Surprisingly” at the very end of the film the writers leave you with “hopes” for a sequel, to be named Strangers: Revenge of Tamara.

I waited till after I wrote my above review to check out what others thought, and it looks like I am not alone. The only person still thinking The Strangers was worth the 18 dollars is Rich Keefe, the ultimate movie optimist. Just because it’s a movie does not mean it’s good.

1/5 estrellas

Keefe: (I’d have to say that the lights going out may have actually been the scariest part, which isn’t a good thing.)

Rich Reviews: Iron Man

-Keefe

I saw Iron Man over the weekend, and figured I’d share my thoughts. Chances are you’ve already seen it as the film has pulled in $177 million in two weeks including $50.5 in its second weekend. The formula is simple. Recognizable comic book + movie star or 2 = easy 100+ million dollar block buster. Let’s see Spider- Man (3 times), X-Men (3), Fantastic 4 (2 and counting), Hulk (and we’ll see another one this summer), Daredevil, Punisher, Batman (all of them), I mean if they keep making them we’ll keep seeing them. You name it, I’ll watch it. Infinity Gauntlet? Yes. X-Factor? Of course. Alpha Flight? Why not.

As for the most recent successful Marvel Comic Book movie adaptation, it was the real deal. Iron Man brought the noise, and no, that’s not the glorious surround sound from the CineMagic talking. Even with the lack of a well known super villain (Iron Monger played by Jeff Bridges, instead of a Joker, Magneto, Kingpin, Dr. Doom, Sabretooth, Juggernaut, Venom, Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus, etc.), you are still intrigued to see what Iron Man is up against. The action, fighting sequences, and special effects were top notch and extremely entertaining.

Robert Downey Jr. was brilliantly cast to play billionaire weapons manufacturer, genius, and playa Tony Stark/ Iron Man. Whether you are familiar with the comic series or not you will enjoy the job done by Downey Jr. There’s been some great acting jobs done in super hero roles; Christian Bale in Batman Begins (and The Dark Knight, which will raise the bar once again) and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in the X-Men series are just two examples, and Downey Jr. is right there with his performance as Stark. He is a natural to play the part and he seems at ease in front of the camera.

The rest of the cast was solid as well. Downey Jr. clearly brings the level of play up from everyone around him, much like a Kevin Garnett with the Celtics. Speaking of the Celtics, when will they start to play well on the road? I mean are you kidding me with that Game 3 showing? Sorry. The supporting cast: Jeff Bridges, who will forever be known as the Dude was good as was Terrence Howard as Stark’s buddy Jim Rhodes. Howard will undoubtedly have a bigger role in the sequel where I expect him to fight side by side as War Machine. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, Stark’s assistant that knows everything about him. She’s not supposed to be smoking hot, so they got that right, but her acting isn’t the best either. Most comic book movies you wouldn’t notice, but when she’s surrounded by the likes of Downey Jr., Bridges, and Howard you can tell. But she wasn’t bad enough to bring down the entire ensemble.

Bottom line, Iron Man is an absolute treat to the eyes and ears. It’s just over 2 hours long, and you’ll never once feel that the film is dragging. Lots of action mixed with humor. You don’t have to be a comic book fan to enjoy this movie, although I’m sure it helps. I give it a 9 out of 10, and can’t wait for the sequel.

Special heads up brought to you by the Sports Brief. If you have not seen the movie yet, make sure you stay through the end of the credits. You’ll be glad you did.

I hope you enjoyed the first installment of Rich Reviews. It will become a new addition to the Brief, where I can sound off on new films that I have seen. Maybe I’ll even save you 9 bucks in the process.