Demon Fighting Pirate? Sure, why not.

For a long time Netflix has wanted me to watch Solomon Kane. A man can only hold out for so long. Director M.J. Bassett put together a surprisingly entertaining movie.

In a lot of ways this movie has a distinctly Diablo feel to it. Did they make a Diablo movie yet? Oh dear, yes, but not what I'm talking about. James Purefoy plays our lead character Solomon Kane. He really gives the role his all. I mean, there isn't a ton to work with here, but that does not stop our hero. Purefoy's greatest character of course was Prince Edward in A Knight's Tale. There are some other people in the movie. For reasons known only to him, Max Von Sydow shows up.

I suppose I should talk about the plot a little. Well, there is a pirate who is a really good fighter, and apparently he made a deal with the Devil. There's some time spent in a monastery, and then Kane decides to get some revenge. He is pretty good at revenge it turns out. The IMDB rating is in the 6s. You can't expect the world here.

If you have a few hours on a rainy Saturday you can do worse than this movie. Honestly, this is an enjoyable, albeit kitschy, movie. 6/10 seems about right.

p.s. Spoiler Alert: The Hound shows up.

NASA propaganda done right

The Martian is one of the most entertaining books I have ever read. I read the thing in 18 hours. Fact. Ridley Scott directs the film adaptation of the book. Do I even need to write a review?

A small note, but an important one because it speaks to the quality of the film. I saw this movie in 3D, and I forgot that it was 3D until after the movie was over. There were no needless 3D action sequences. The 3D was a seamless part of the movie. Bravo. As far as the acting? All top notch. Matt Damon delivers. Jessica Chastain is great. Michael Peña is severely underrated in Hollywood. Why isn't he in more movies? He has 72 acting credits. Maybe I'm not watching enough of his stuff. Chiwetel Ejiofor is awesome. Sean Bean! Jeff Daniels! Okay, now I'm just listing people in the movie. Kate Mara. I'm done.

This review is light on analysis. Why? Because it can be. This movie is damn near perfect, and all I need to say is go see it.

9/10, I should just give this 10/10. Actually this is 10/10.

I would not want to be Equalized

Let's just get this out of the way. Denzel Washington is the man. I don't think that point was in question, but it is worth mentioning. The Equalizer is a very good movie. Don't believe me? Antoine Fuqua is the director. Get over it.

I made the mistake of watching this movie in close proximity to John Wick. I loved John Wick. LOVED IT. The Equalizer is in some ways better than John Wick. Denzel is a very convincing assassin/CIA operative. Perhaps the best part of The Equalizer is Marton Csokas portrayal of the Russian fixer.

Denzel Denzels and lots of bad guys get it. What more do you want?

Score: 8/10. This is a pretty entertaining movie.

John Wick is perfect

John Wick is the best action movie I have seen in years. First time directing duo Chad Tahelski and David Leitch have created a classic. In fact, I haven't been this pumped about an action movie since Equilibrium.

The role of John Wick was made for Keeanu Reeves. There is minimal dialogue and Reeves gets to focus on kicking ass in a completely dispassionate manner, as if it were a foregone conclusion. In fact, the people Wick is after realize that it largely is a foregone conclusion. Michael Nyqvist is a great mob boss. John Legiuzamo shows up for a small but crucial role. Three roles stand out for me though: Willem Dafoe as Wick's assassin friend, Adrianne Palicki as a female assassin foe of Wick's, and Alfie Allen as the guy you love to hate who wrongs Wick. Seriously, Alfie Allen has likely been permanently typecast as a guy you want to punch in the face. See e.g. Theon Greyjoy.

The fight sequences are more or less believable. The details are great. You can hear shells drop after each shot, Wick takes time to reload, and everything seems so deliberate. The way the movie is shot reminds me somewhat of the first Matrix in that there is a certain minimalist quality to the sets, lighting, and characters. I loved the fact that the movie gave you a glimpse of the underworld, and how Wick is this mythical figure in it. If you like action movies you owe it to yourself to see this movie. I mean, there is no way it will disappoint you.

10/10, perfect action revenge movie. seriously, 10 out of 10.

I ain't no boy

Hellboy is one of the first generation (I think that's right) of comic book movies that came out between the late 90s and early 2000s. I think it was really Blade that was the first big comic movie. Not counting Superman or Batman of course. In this case, Hellboy (the topic of this post) came out in 2004, and was Guillermo del Toro's first major production, unless you count Blade II. Where was I?

Nazis, demons, and random gadgets what more do you want in a popcorn flick? Plus, bonus! Niles Crane plays the underwater dude, movie name "Abe Sapien." Yes I know it is David Hyde Pierce. And let us not forget Selma Blair as, yep, a brooding character. Ron Perlman might have actually been born to be Hellboy. I mean without the makeup he kind of looks like Hellboy. Oh, by the way, Ron Perlman was in Blade II. True story.

This is a good action/sci-fi movie. The story is adequate. The acting is sufficient.

6/10, but a really strong 6. I don't know why I don't just adopt a rating system that incorporates half points...

Nothing to Dread

Remakes of movies are like, well nothing good. Rarely is a remake considerably better than the original. This review is about "Dredd" which is a remake of "Judge Dredd." Perhaps remake is not the right word, because I suppose Dredd may be intended as a complimentary story to Judge Dredd, or a retelling of the story. Regardless, the main character, Judge Dredd, is fairly different in the Sylvester Stallone and Karl Urban versions.

Karl Urban is a better Dredd than Stallone. He has the right amount of grit and anger for the job. Olivia Thirlby was a a welcome addition to the Judge universe. Her character was surprisingly complex for a popcorn action movie. Lena Headey is as an extraordinarily dark villain. This is a fun, crazy, dark, great action movie. One note is that the fake drug that sits at the center of the movie results in some beautiful trippy cinematography when characters in the movie take the drug. Once the movie was done I wanted the knowledge that there will be a sequel. The movie ending certainly allows it, but who knows.

8/10. Oh you think that is a high rating? Too bad. This is a great movie.

Smaug Delivers

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is yet another excellent addition in the film adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkein's Middle Earth mythology. Every time I see Peter Jackson's renditions in this genre I always think of Meet the Feebles. It's amazing that it is the same director. You would think his early work doomed him from every heading up an A-list franchise.

I think that The Desolation of Smaug is possibly in the group of sequels that are actually better than the movies that precede them. I would throw The Godfather: Part II, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, The Dark Knight, and Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back. Yes I know these are not controversial positions to take. Oh my gosh, how could I forget Terminator 2: Judgment Day? Anyways, this is not to say that TDOS (that's "The Desolation of Smaug" in case you were wondering) is as good as the sequels already listed, but I think TDOS is better than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. TDOS has more action than AUJ (that's "An Unexpected Journey") and the characters start to come into their own beyond the introduction period of AUJ.

Listen, this is pretty simple. If you like the Lord of the Rings movies, or fantasy movies (there aren't really a ton of these) then you will like The Desolation of Smaug. 7/10, good solid entertaining movie.

Not as Hungry as I'd Like

These four notes are etched into my memory for all time. Not necessarily because of how great this movie is (it isn't all that great), but because this movie was crazy hyped. I felt like there was constant advertising of it. And, I'll admit, I was very excited. That changed when I left the theater.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first Hunger Games movie. Catching Fire simply did not live up to the first one. I did enjoy Catching Fire, but I thought it would be more enjoyable. I feel like the story just wasn't as engaging, and the characters seemed a little flat. Not all of the characters were flat though. I thought Elizabeth Banks actually did a fantastic job in this movie as Effie. Josh Hutcherson was also pretty solid just like in the first movie.

I will say that the movie is believably set up for the 3rd installment (I know the third movie is being broken up into two but whatever), so I don't feel like the series is unnecessarily carrying on. I think i've been too harsh on the movie. It definitely has it's moments. Lenny Kravitz? Exactly. Also, the introduction of Philip Seymour Hoffman was a welcome addition. Overall, this was pretty good. Not as good as the first, but close enough.

7/10. Entertaining. I'll watch again if I binge watch the quadrilogy at some point.

White House Fun

White House Down is no Air Force One. It's better. Although the two movies have the same rating on IMDb, WHD (yes I have acrnoymized White House Down to WHD, sue me) doesn't take itself seriously, and knows how to party. If you don't enjoy Roland Emmerich's work then we probably can't watch movie's together.

First and foremost. I like Channing Tatum. If this is what he is like in other movies then I'd be willing to see that one where his fiance forgets him or something. He plays opposite Jamie Foxx perfectly. This movie is like everyone showed up and said "Let's have some fun." Except Maggie Gyllenhaal. Her performance added some unneeded gravitas to the whole affair. But have no fear! Reliable supporting actor Richard Jenkins shows up with snark at maximum level as a congressman.

If this movie shows up on cable tv and you haven't already seen it 10 times, watch it again. This is classic style action movie absurdity. The story is not believable, but the the movie is entertaining. Not much else needs to be said about this one.

8/10, will have to watch again, great action movie

WELCOME TO THE ROCK!!

Michael Bay's The Rock may be the quintessential 90's action movie. It has all the absurdity that you would expect from the pre-911 action genre. In fact, I think the only other movie that comes close to competing with it would probably be True Lies. Now before this post devolves into a one-man love fest of the Governator I should get back to The Rock.

The Rock is a reference to Alcatraz Island and accordingly, the movie is aptly named, because it is where the action in the movie takes place. You have people breaking into Alcatraz, people that broke out of Alcatraz, and people that just wanted a picture of them behind bars at Alcatraz before they went back to their hotel. The acting in this movie is actually really pretty good. Ed Harris's portrayal of the misguided general is believable in nearly every way. Sean Connery basically plays a retired James Bond, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nicholas Cage. Well, Nicholas Cage plays Nicholas Cage. He isn't losing it the whole time, but he is very Cagey.

Here's the deal. The Rock is a good movie. People don't want to accept that because of Nicholas Cage, and because it is a Michael Bay movie. However, if you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe what the late Roger Ebert had to say about the film. The movie is a fun no frills action movie. It doesn't go over the top with special effects, and it delivers equal parts suspense and absurdity in a delightful manner. If you like action movies, The Rock is for you.

8/10, own it, will watch again, and again, favorite Michael Bay movie, that's a short list

I like the way you die boy.

Django Unchained. Quentin Tarantino. Jamie Foxx. Christoph Waltz. Do I really need to keep typing things? Kerry Washington. Leonardo DiCaprio. Samuel L. Jackson.

This Tarantino offering, like many of his other films, is packed full of quality performances by the actors. Additionally, it's not just the actors performances that are quality. As you have no doubt come to expect, the story, cinematography, music selections, and overall feel of the movie are also of the highest quality. I can only speculate that Tarantino has the most voluminous movie mind out there. Every shot that he does seems to have meaning and is a homage to some other famous movie. For example, Waltz's character being a dentist is apparently a reference to an old Bob Hope movie, The Paleface.

The movie is in the style of an old Spaghetti Western revenge flick. Since this is Quentin Tarantino we're talking about the movie is gory. In fact, this movie has one of Tarantino's highest death tolls. The carnage is not really the central focus though. The movie is much more about Django's odyssey to find his wife Broomhilda.

The great thing about a Tarantino movie, and really all well done movies, is the level of detail in each shot. For example, there is a scene where Django and Christoph Waltz's character Dr. Schultz go into a bar. Dr. Schultz goes and pours a beer for himself and Django and you are treated to a closeup of Dr. Schultz wiping off the top of the head from the beer. I don't know why, but I just thought that was such a cool little detail to add. That little closeup probably isn't even important to the story in anyway, but you'll appreciate it when you see it.

9/10 will watch again, gory, but great revenge/rescue epic

P.S. There was buzz about DiCaprio and Jackson being snubbed, and truth be told they were fantastic in the movie, but I've come to expect such superb performances from them every movie so just how fantastic they are seems self-evident to me.

Wielding Neptune's Spear

The operation that killed Osama bin Laden is not without controversy. Anything surrounding terrorism is, and always will be, a loaded subject. Some people even accuse Kathryn Bigelow's movie Zero Dark Thirty of being a propaganda piece. I have no comment on all of that, because I just write about movies as movies.

As an aside, apparently, 2012 was the year of the CIA movie since Zero Dark Thirty lost the Academy Award for Best Picture to Argo. Yeah, yeah, but what about this movie?

This movie is all about Jessica Chastain, and she rightfully earned a Best Actress nomination for her role as Maya. More to the point, this movie is all about Maya's obsession. It shouldn't come as a surprise that she is obsessed with finding Osama bin Laden. With each event Maya believes she is getting closer to finding bin Laden, but that isn't really the case.

The supporting actors are all quite solid, such as Kyle Chandler and Jennifer Ehle, but the two that really stick out for me were Reda Kateb (as the detainee Ammar) and Jason Clarke (as the CIA officer Dan). The interaction between Ammar and Dan is uncomfortable on many levels, but it would be hard to say it isn't convincing. There is also a considerable amount of torture in the film. You've been warned.

This movie could easily fall into the category of "not needing to see again," not because it is a bad movie, but because it hits a little too close to home. You already know the story, and yet the tension is there. So many emotions surrounding the subject matter are evoked by the film that it could be the kind of thing you don't want to revisit.

9/10, although I reserve the right to roll it back to 8/10 if I ever watch it again. I thought it was a great movie, but there's something about it I can't put my finger on.

Tin man gets a heart

Writing this review of Iron Man 3 was difficult in that I didn't want to reveal too many spoilers. Ultimately, this is the worst of the Iron Man movies. That doesn't mean that the movie is bad, but that the other two are pretty good. If I had to rank the movies from best to worst I would do so in the order that they came out.

Robert Downey Jr. is so familiar with the character at this point that it looks almost too easy for him to pull off Tony Stark. Somewhat surprising to myself in this one is how much screen time is devoted to Gwyneth Paltrow's character Pepper Potts. However, upon reflection, it does make sense, because the events center almost entirely around Pepper and Tony's relationship.

From the trailers I was expecting a very epic clash between a worthy mad genius foil for Tony Stark, ie The Mandarin. I will say this, Ben Kingsley can do no wrong. Spoiler alert, do not click this link about why comic book fans didn't like the Mandarin in this movie.

Apart from the aforementioned controversy this movie actually has the most tension of all the Iron Man movies. Iron Man might not make it through this time. The enemy is substantial, and the fight is larger than before. You've got all the necessary Iron Man whiz bang, and snarkiness. Don Cheadle is there to help out. And you know what, that is enough. Definitely a movie you wouldn't mind watching if it happened to be on, and you'd probably deem it a worthy waste of time.

7/10 Good cap to the series......so far, I mean they are going to make another, no way they don't

P.S. Guy Pearce is in this movie, and he is almost as scuzzy as he was in Lawless. All I've got to say about that.

Downey Jr. Continues his Jaunt as Snarky Billionaire

I watched Iron Man 2 recently. I would say it was as enjoyable as the first Iron Man. Much like my critique of the first Iron Man (which I saw about a month prior to viewing Iron Man 2) I bought into a lot of the characters. The movie was entertaining, and a good sequel to the first.

Often times sequels fail to live up to the standard that the first movie established. I'm thinking of things like: Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, The Matrix Reloaded, Die Hard 2, etc. It's not that these movies are bad per se, it's that they weren't confident enough in being their own movie, so they just did the first movie over. Now, it probably seems like the difference between the approach of those three movies to being a sequel and Iron Man 2's approach is not that different. I would agree with you in part, but disagree overall.

Iron Man 2 operates under a separate paradigm from the first movie. Here Tony Stark is known the world over as Iron Man, and things are pretty hunky-dory. But, of course things are not what they seem. There is trouble brewing in Russia. Iron Man has a dangerous secret. He wants to give up, but he finds redemption, and together with the help of his friends saves the world! Isn't that the same story arc as the first movie? Yeah, more or less, but so what? This movie was just as entertaining as I was hoping it would be.

Robert Downey, Jr. was his typical solid self. Mickey Rourke did a more than sufficient job as Ivan Vanko, ie the bad guy. Although, to be honest, it was a little hard to think of Rourke as some sort of tech genius. I'm not sure who should have been cast in the alternative. Maybe Peter Stormare? Peter Stormare can be pretty menacing. I mean if you told me that guy would be getting behind a computer, and then breaking someone's neck I would say "Sure, seems believable". Seriously, why didn't they call Peter Stormare? Other than that minor issue, I thought the returning actors did a good job, and the new additions (Don Cheadle, and Scarlett Johansson) were believable in their respective roles.

Oh yeah, Sam Rockwell is in this movie. Has there ever been a more outmatched villain than Rockwell in this movie? Yes. Vernon Wells as Bennett in Commando. Rockwell was very Rockwelly, and kind of annoying, which makes me question my assessment of other Rockwell movies.

All told, the movie was just as entertaining as the first one, and advanced the overall Iron Man story nicely. I look forward to the third installment coming out in less than a month.

7/10 would watch again, probably multiples

Downey Jr. Plays Snarky Playboy

It took me forever to see the first Iron Man movie, but I am happy I finally did. Jon Favreau's movie was thoroughly entertaining. First off, Robert Downey, Jr. is perfectly cast as Iron Man. There is something about his personality that matches the snarky, playboy billionaire that Tony Stark is supposed to be. The casting of Gwynenth Paltrow doesn't make all that much sense to me, however, I do think she was good in the role. I think it is mostly just odd to see her in such a supporting role, although I guess her last lead role was Sky Captain? Bounce? Seriously, what is Gwyneth Paltrow doing these days?

The film itself was quite enjoyable. The plot was very straightforward comic book fare, but at the same time wasn't overly cheesy. The delivery of one-liners was timely, and not awkward. There was a sufficient back story for me to believe Stark's transformation from nihilist to savior. One thing that I would have liked to see more of was information on the leader of the Ten Rings. Up until the point he showed up it seemed like Stark was kidnapped by a fairly unsophisticated bunch, but then BAM some dude with no accent shows up speaking English, and laying down the law. That was an interesting twist. Also, Jeff Bridges losing his mind was not terribly convincing. I mean, yes, he did get his hit exposed by Paltrow's character, but then he just decides to suit up? He doesn't try to flee? He just goes nuts? I think maybe if Jeff Bridges had whipped out a silenced pistol and killed the leader of Ten Rings I would be a little more okay with his suiting up at the end of the movie. Point being, he didn't do enough explicitly bad things (aside from ordering the hit) to make me buy the suit donning. I guess he did later say that he didn't have the stomach "for this kind of thing," but that seems very insufficient.

I think as far as comic book movies go, this has to be near the top for me. My first introduction to Iron Man was The Avengers. I loved the Avengers, and specifically Robert Downey, Jr. It is pretty easy to kind of do whatever you want technology wise when your protagonist is a billionaire weapons manufacturer. You can just have him invent stuff. I feel like the movie ended perfectly to set up the next in the series. In this movie SHIELD's involvement is somewhat confusing, but it doesn't take away from the movie. You probably just think that there is no reason for them being there. That is assuming you aren't familiar with the comic book universe, or The Avengers.

I wonder if I would like this as much if someone else had played Iron Man. I also wonder how much of the character is just just Downey, Jr. himself, and not acting. Come to think of it, he is like this in pretty much every movie. That's not a knock on Downey, Jr., but more of an observation.

All around, I would totally watch this again. I would recommend it to others, but I think a great many people I know have already seen it.

8/10, will watch again, probably buy too, seriously fun.