THE GREEN HORNET REVIEW

1.5 of 4 stars

This show is Funny People meets Scott Pilgrim and the Mask. It is full of great action, witty and snarky dialog, and plain ridiculousness.

The special effects were amazing, but the characters don't really progress. If you're looking for some thing fun and shallow, this is the movie for you.

As fun as the Green Hornet character is, it is Kato that makes the whole movie worthwhile with all of his inventions and his progression as he helps the lame 'hero' have one moment of cool action.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

First and foremost the tell tale sign of any movie that is good is a movie that you want to fork out another full priced admission for, and this is definitely one of them!

I believe the most important thing to be aware of before going to see this movie is that it has definitely earned it's PG-13 rating. In the pre-screening I saw last night some cautions need to be understood, more than the MPAA rating descriptor offers.

There are Snake attack's (yes, there's more than 1) from Voldemort's pet snake that could be pretty scary for those younger than 13.

Also, I saw people as young as probably 5-7 years old in attendance and those youngsters got to see more of Emma Watson/Hermione Granger than the parents probably bargained for.
For those not familiar with the book, there is an entity from Voldemort that is taunting Ron that shows him his greatest fears, which include Harry and Hermione claiming they are for each other and Ron is essentially useless. Voldemort tops it off with Ron watching this entity show Harry and Hermione from the navel up and topless, passionately kissing. With clever placement of some mist the audience is very short of being exposed to (profile view) full-on upper female nudity.

The second act of the movie consisted of a lot of waiting for the next thing to happen which, additionally, could leave the younger viewers scared at first then bored.

Despite the more mature content for younger viewers, I really enjoyed this movie, a lot! This has elements in it that I believe all Harry Potter fans have been waiting for. We get rounds of Poly Juice Potion, jinxes, broom riding, Dementors, Death Eater ambushes and "drive-by's" and wand play. My favorite part was a "shoot out" in a diner between Ron, Harry & Hermione and a couple of Death Eaters/hitmen. We also get to see Harry give Delores Umbrigde what he should have gave her 2 movies ago.

And finally, for those of you emotionally attached to the characters, take tissues, my wife was really wanting them. I even found myself pretty sad at the loss of 1 particular character, sorry, no spoilers here.

Alien (3/4 stars)

Some time in the future Earth has sent out a group of people as ore miners. Reposnding to a distress call they decide to investigate and introduce the world to the acclaimed "scariest movie ever made."


"ClearPlay Experience"

I have previously watched bits and peices of Alien but have never sat down and watched it from start to finish, in 1 setting.

I turned off all the filters off for Violence, Blood and Distrubing Imagry, because - like I said - I'd seen the most famous parts of the movie already. I was not only surprised by the superb job ClearPlay did in accurately taking out the profanity and skipping the "Ripley" character getting down to her underwear, but the violence - at the time was shocking - would now be a PG-13, when stacked up against others, like Saw. The chest burst is a lot less graphic than I remember, probably because I remember the "magic" of the moment being shocking, because of what happens and not because of gory visuals.

Actually the violent content in this movie is suggestive and doesn't show any chest cavities spewing forth the alien. When this scene does come to fruition the burst is so quick I almost didn't know what happened and we see a small alien in the foreground of a bloody arm and chest, but no human insides are seen.

Additionally, the alien attacking people shows about half a second of the alien attacking. You cannot even tell where on the person the alien attacks.

Finally the weapons... there was only a flame thrower, that was only used... probably twice.


Overall I say ClearPlay did a wonderful job.


Alien has a common sense rating of PG-13, but filtered at maximum levels would Alien only be appropriate for 13+, due to scary images and blood.

Salt (Reviewed by Ed)

3.5 out of 4 stars

 

At 35 years old, Angelina Jolie shows she can still kick some serious butt.  As a CIA officer, Evelyn Salt (Jolie) swore an oath to duty, honor and country. Her loyalty is tested when a defector, Vassily Orlov (played by Daniel Olbrychski), accuses her of being a Russian spy during a routine interrogation. When Orlov says that a Russian spy will go to Washington and kill the President, Salt asks who the name of the spy is and Orlov states that the name of the Russian spy is Evelyn Salt.  Salt goes on the run, using all her skills and years of experience as a covert operative to elude capture. Her CIA partner, Ted Winter (Liev Shcreiber), is trying to convince those who are chasing her that she is innocent, but as Salt's efforts to prove her innocence only serve to cast doubt on her motives.

 

So the question remains, “Who is Evelyn Salt?”  Is she a spy or not?  How many spies are there in the U.S?  I really enjoyed this movie and even though I’m not a big Angelina Jolie fan I thought she did a great job.  There’s some great action in this movie and some plot twists that will keep you guessing at times.  By no means is this a mind bender type of a movie but as you watch the movie you are trying to figure out who is a spy and who isn’t.  The action scenes were a bit over the top in some places (similar to the “Knight and Day” action sequences) but they were still great to watch.  It’s a fast paced, in your face movie that delivers on many cylinders.

 

I thought the acting was good and the plot was good, although a bit over the top during some parts.  This is one of those “popcorn movies” that I like to talk about.  Just kick back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the ride!

 

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 3
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 5
Would I buy the movie? 3

 

"Salt" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.

Inception (Reviewed by Ed)

3.75 out of 4 stars

 

Dom Cobb is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the dangerous art of extraction, stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state, when the mind is at its most vulnerable. Cobb's rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible-inception. Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists have to pull off the reverse: their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But no amount of careful planning or expertise can prepare the team for the dangerous enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming. Warner Bros. Pictures

 

The author Janos Arany once said, “In dreams and in love there are no impossibilities”…can I change this quote a little bit by saying, “In dreams and in love and in the mind of Christopher Nolan there are no impossibilities.”  I am still amazed at what comes out of the mind of this guy.  The average person uses 10% of their brain so when you watch a Nolan movie you better bring all of it and Inception is no exception.  In fact, if you only use 10% of your brain while watching this movie you will most likely be a drooling idiot by the closing credits. 

 

Christopher Nolan doesn’t miss a thing in this movie and with a strong cast of A and even some B actors this movie is one of the best of the year.  Leonardo DiCaprio (Cobb), to me, has shown that he has come far in his ability to act from his less than stellar performance in the popular movie “Titanic.”  With a great supporting cast and some really cool mind bending special effects, Inception should be a shoe-in for at the least an Oscar nomination. 

 

I’m giving this movie 3.75 stars out of 4 only because there were a few things about the movie that didn’t work for me.  It is 2 hours and 40 minutes long, which in this movie doesn’t make it a bad thing but there were a few areas that I thought dragged a bit.  Probably my biggest complaint was that there were several times in the movie where it was hard to understand what they were saying, especially when Ken Watanabe spoke in the movie.  Too many times I kept thinking, “What did he say?”  Also, there were a few other places where I couldn’t understand what they said because of too much noise in the background or they didn’t articulate their speech.  That got bothersome to me after a while. 

 

Inception is definitely a movie that needs to be seen more than once to pick up what was not understood the first time around.  There’s so many questions that this movie brings up that it would take all day to write out the questions of what was real and what was a dream, or was it all a dream?  It just goes to show you that Hollywood can actually make a movie, every once in a blue moon, that makes people think and doesn’t dumb down society.  Too bad Christopher Nolan is one of the few that can do that for us. 

 

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 5
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 1 (Because I will buy it!)
Would I buy the movie? 5

 

"Inception" is rated PG-13 for sequences of violence and action throughout.

Die Hard (1) (Reviewed by Chuck)

3/4 stars

I know I'm a little behind the times here, I have never seen Die Hard 1, all the way through before - just bits and pieces.

NYC cop, John McClain, arrives in L.A, to attend a Christmas Party with his estranged wife - at her employers office tower. While - at the same time - terrorists are on their way to hi-jack the building and steal company bearer bonds, lots of them.


The ClearPlay Experience.
After 2 hours, I was sad that the wacky adventures of Indiana McClane were over. Yes it was loud, exaggerated, and chocked full of profanity, but I was having a great time.

Die Hard (1) (Rated R) - with ClearPlay shields at maximum - has a common sense rating of PG-13. I don't have any reservations about letting my kids watch this after they are 13+. I was left with a bloodless, profanity-free & excessively violent-free thrill ride, with some automatic weapon dog fights scattered through out the 2nd and 3rd act.

Yes, it sounds strange to say it was a good movie without all the elements that one would think would make the movie exciting, but how McClane continues to outsmart the terrorists is where the fun is, not watching blood spatter or hearing someone rattle off the f-bomb in a witty manor. Fans of the show know the John McClane one-liner I'm talking about.

Put another one in the victory column for ClearPlay!


Die Hard (1): ClearPlay, is PG-13 for:
Dead bodies and Violence (multiple instances of semi and fully automatic weapon use, gun fights, fisticuffs, and explosions.)

Despicable Me (reviewed by Chuck)

2.5/4 stars

When I first walked out of this movie it was an easy 4 star movie because it was so funny, but then after a day or so I had time to reflect on what was funny and what didn't make me laugh.

For starters the plot that the trailers explained was excellent: Super villains battling for #1 super bad guy acclimations. But I was surprised and slightly disappointed to find that there was a hint of 3 men and a baby to this, where the primary character #2 super villain, Gru is trying to out do #1 bad guy, Vector. Gru see's orphaned girls trying to sell cookies and how easily they get into Vector's inpenetrable layer, and decides to adopt them to fulfill his own selfish needs. Where the trailers I saw never explains how the girls fit into this, I was disappointed to have the focus of the movie shift from "1-upping #1 super villain," to "give the orphan girls a home."

I found Steve Carrel's acting to be thoroughly enjoyable and his Russian accent simply added to how enjoyable his character was, however the situations he's put into don't add much too make the movie something stellar. In fact Gru's little yellow minions steal the show, much like Skrat from Ice Age does for the Ice Age trilogy, which is a shame, because this movie had a lot of potential. I found myself wanting more minions than Gru's wacky baby sitting adventure.

All in all, much like Ice Age is cute to watch, you end up wanting to have more of the comedy relief than you do the main players, which means Dream Works again puts more emphasis on the sub-componants of a movie and leaves it's primary elements lacking.

Knight & Day (Reviewed by Ed)

3.5/4 Stars

 

A single girl en route to a family wedding gets swept up in a fight between a rogue government agent and the FBI in this globe-trotting action comedy from director James Mangold (Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma). June Havens (Cameron Diaz) is preparing to board a flight back home for her sister's wedding when she literally bumps into Roy Miller (Tom Cruise) in the middle of a busy airport. A few minutes later, they're making small talk on the plane when June excuses herself to the bathroom, and all misery breaks loose in the fuselage. By the time June emerges Roy has killed everybody on board, including the pilots. After crash landing the plane in a darkened cornfield, Roy tells June that she should expect a visit from government agents, but warns her that by cooperating with them she risks almost certain death. The following day, Roy's prediction comes true when June is confronted by an imposing gang of government spooks who come under heavy fire while bombarding her with questions about her mysterious traveling companion. Suddenly, Roy is back, and he's once again whisking June away to safety. But what do the agents want, and why do they insist that Roy is the one to be feared, and not them? Before long the girl who never traveled far from home is off on a wild adventure that will take her from the tropics to Austria, France, and Spain. Somewhere amidst all of the confusion and gunfire, June begins to forge a bond with Roy. Unfortunately, it's never quite clear whether her unpredictable protector is one of the good guys or the bad guys, and by the time Roy reveals that he's attempting to protect a valuable new energy source, there's no time for questions..

http://www.fandango.com/knightandday_v495346/summary

 

I have to say that Tom Cruise, in my mind, does it again.  It’s a shame that he’s said and done things in the past that has soured so many movie goers to not want to see his movies anymore.  Once again, Tom Cruise shows why he is a great actor and a fabulous action star.  At 48 years old Cruise still has what it takes to make an action movie a must see.  His fight scenes (especially in the airplane) reminded me of an older Matt Damon/Jason Bourne style which is always fun to watch.  Cruise has done the action movie so many times in the past and “Knight and Day” is no slouch.  Cruse and Diaz have great chemistry in this movie and both of them play off of each other very well.  This is one of those movies where you don’t expect Tom Cruise to be so funny but he pulls it off in a very natural way. 

 

Yes this is an action movie but it’s not your typical shoot em up, blow up everything in your path movie (although there is some of that in the movie), it’s more of a hybrid of action/romance/comedy all tied up together. 

 

Are there cheesy things in the movie?  Absolutely!  It does at times exaggerate the action but does it in a way that doesn’t offend the viewer, but instead adds to the humor of the movie.  I could see how some people would be turned off by some of the stunts if they didn’t have a fun bone in their body.  It’s a movie where you just shut off your critical brain for a few hours, grab some popcorn, bring your spouse and have a good time.

 

In typical Hollywood fashion there are the sexual innuendos and language that they could do without. Diaz drops the “F” bomb one time in a conversation and, once again, it really doesn’t need to be said but what else do we expect from Hollywood?

 

I think ClearPlay will do pretty good at taking out what needs to be taken out.  There may be some parts of the movie that might not make as much sense in ClearPlay mode but for the most part it should work out well.

 

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 3.5
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 5 (If I don’t buy it)
Would I buy the movie? 5 (If I don’t rent it)

 

"Knight and Day" is rated PG-13 and features strong violent action (gunplay and shootings, brawling, knife play and stabbings, explosive, fiery and vehicular mayhem, and violence against women), scattered strong profanity (including one usage of the so-called "R-rated" curse word), brief bloody imagery and some suggestive references. Running time: 110 minutes.

The Last Airbender (Reviewed by Ed)

2 stars out of 4


The world is divided into four kingdoms, each represented by the element they harness, and peace has lasted throughout the realms of Water, Air, Earth, and Fire under the supervision of the Avatar, a link to the spirit world and the only being capable of mastering the use of all four elements. When young Avatar Aang disappears, the Fire Nation launches an attack to eradicate all members of the Air Nomads to prevent interference in their future plans for world domination. 100 years pass and current Fire Lord Ozai continues to conquer and imprison anyone with elemental "bending" abilities in the Earth and Water Kingdoms, while siblings Katara and Sokka from a Southern Water Tribe find a mysterious boy trapped beneath the ice outside their village. Upon rescuing him, he reveals himself to be Aang, Avatar and last of the Air Nomads. Swearing to protect the Avatar, Katara and Sokka journey with him to the Northern Water Kingdom in his quest to master "Waterbending" and eventually fulfill his destiny of once again restoring peace to the world. But as they inch nearer to their goal, the group must evade Prince Zuko, the exiled son of Lord Ozai, Commander Zhao, the Fire Nation's military leader, and the tyrannical onslaught of the evil Fire Lord himself.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/plotsummary


Now let me preface by saying I’ve never seen ANY of the Airbender cartoons so this review comes from that point of view. I’m starting to wonder about this so-called summer blockbuster season. There have been a handful of movies where the trailer has looked REALLY GOOD and then you find out that the movie doesn’t live up to what you expect. Some perfect examples have been Prince of Persia, Clash of the Titans, Iron Man 2 and now add The Last Airbender into the mix. Again, what looks so good in the trailer doesn’t translate onto the big screen. To me, Hollywood is losing a battle that they better turn around or viewers will cut back on their movie going experiences.

The Last Airbender has a lot of potential (just like the other 3 movies I referred to), but this film falls short where the other ones don’t...acting! I can’t remember the last time where I saw a movie where just about every character forgot what they learned in acting class. This was the biggest problem with this movie, which says a lot because the plot was pretty choppy as well. When you have bad acting and a poor plot it’s tough to enjoy a movie like this even when the special effects and fight sequences were pretty good.

Watching this movie I found myself dozing off a few times because I just wasn’t into it. I’ve seen almost every movie M. Night Shyamalan has made and to be honest I’ve really enjoyed 2 of them (The Sixth Sense and Signs) and the rest of the ones I’ve seen (The Village, Unbreakable and Lady In The Water) were average movies that I liked but wasn’t overly ecstatic about them. This movie probably was at the bottom of all the movies he’s done and I’m wondering if he is committing theatrical suicide. Mr. Shyamalan needs to hit the reset button and if he decides to make the second Airbender movie then I hope he does so by doing us all a favor and forcing every single cast member to go back to “Acting 101” class.

Like Clash of the Titans, this movie was not shot with 3D cameras and they made the conversion after the movie was filmed. Fortunately I didn’t see this movie in 3D and from what I’ve heard it’s not visually good in 3D.


Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 1
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 2
Would I buy the movie? 1

"The Last Airbender" is rated PG for violent action and imagery (elemental attacks, martial-arts battles, fiery and explosive mayhem, as well as violence against women and children). Running time: 103 minutes.

Toy Story 3 (Reviewed by Chuck)

4/4 Stars

Unlike many I've heard talk about their low & reserved Toy Story 3 expectations, I didn't expect Toy Story 3 to be a bad or less than par chapter in the Toy Story franchise. Deservedly so, many are generally right when it comes to multiple installments being less than impressive than it's predecessors - generally speaking of any franchise. Toy Story 3 definitely did more than most any other "3" movie has ever been able to do, and that is to be able to leave audiences grateful that hard earned money spent didn't leave you feeling robbed of 2 hours of your time. In fact this Toy Story left me glad we forked out the cash to cover the whole family, especially where everyone loved the movie.

We have Andy, who is getting ready to go to college. He's told to pack things for college or the attic and the rest ends up in the trash. In a tough decision he decides to take Woody to school and pack up the rest of the beloved toys to the attic. Which he proceeds with, until he's distracted and leaves the toys (in a garbage bag) that were on their way to the attic - next to the attic staircase. Mom finds the bag of "garbage" and proceeds to take the toys to the curb. Woody witnesses this, panics because his friends have just been tossed, then - to make matters worse - the garbage truck is a few houses away.

The toys are able to set them selves free and decide to hop in a day care donation box in the open trunk of the family car because they realize that they have a chance to get played with by doing so. Upon arrival everything looks grand, even the kids that are going to play with them, as set up by the toy who is the "administrative director" of all the toys "Lottso" (Ned Beatty) and his "right-hand man" Ken (Michael Keaton) - from the Barbie toy line. Lottso assigns them to the room with younger children (about 2-3 years old) that nobody saw, when everyone arrived. These kids are reckless, destructive and have no care or concern for how they play with any toys. This obviously puts the toys in distress and are looking to get re-assigned to the older children's room.

The Toy Story group decides to send Buzz out to find Lottso and he discovers Lottso's posse - bad-mouthing Buzz and his friends - then capture Buzz. Buzz requests they be moved to more mature children and Lottso refuses, because the toys in the older children's room have already paid their dues and new guys need to do the same. Then in order to ensure the new guys don't create an uprising they turn Buzz into their security guard, turning the movie into a prison parody. Eventually the toys we're routing for capture Buzz and accidentally reset him to a Spanish-language Space Ranger and complete their orchestrated prison break.

In the final 3rd act there were a couple of moments that were close to tissue-worthy. Pixar could definitely end the franchise here, but left it open to make a 4th movie, if they wanted to. And to be honest I would love another Toy Story. I'm not getting tired of these toys.

The Hurt Locker (Reviewed by Chuck)

The ClearPlay Experience

After 2 hours and 10 minutes of war, bombs, shooting and lots of cussing I actually wanted my 130 minutes back. War movies are about the only types of movies I'll leave the violence, disturbing imagery and bloodshed unfiltered, because of it's nature. It's war, plain and simple, it's real and it happens. Generally speaking, war movies aren't glorified violence-fests, like you'd find in the Elm Street or Jason slasher's.

Why did I want my 130 minutes back, I didn't see where there was much of a story. We follow the main character around after he replaces the last bomb defuser that was killed in a bomb shockwave. We don't have a definitive direction the movie is headed, like with Saving Private Ryan, or Black Hawk Down. We simply have the bomb squad being called in when they see trip wires, a car bomb and the like and get to see some desert shoot outs from insurgents and the troops. Lots of swearing is everywhere in this movie and the violence was no where near what I'd would have expected from an R. Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk down were far more graphic and disturbing than Hurt Locker.

Despite allowing ClearPlay to let the violent related content come through there were a lot of skipped content that I wouldn't have expected, because I guess that a lot of the dialogue in the movie was brainless profanity, as it was rated R for violence and language.


The Hurt Locker (Rated R) - with ClearPlay shields at maximum - has a common sense rating of PG-13. Due to the lack of bloody, graphic and gory violence, I'm sure if the director took out all the swearing this would have been pretty easy to give a 13 instead of an R.
I'm assuming that the MPAA justified in giving this movie an R was for a suicide bomber - and 1 soldier in a non-related scene - get killed in a blast that envelopes the characters in dust and smoke. You know these guys are toast, but you don't see body parts flying, etc and you really don't get taken by surprise. It's pretty obvious that the 2 that are at the epicenter of the blast were going to get taken out by these bombs.

It almost felt I was riding around on the show "Cops." A lot of what was happening felt very random and pointless. I didn't feel like the movie was coming to fruition, except maybe to watch and see if the bomb squad finished their last 30 days of their tour. I'll be happy to go back and watch Saving Private Ryan any day. SPR has far more emotion and edge of your seat moments than this Desert Storm version of Cops.

Best Picture of 2009? Seriously??? After recently watching District 9, I'd put that as a better picture than Hurt Locker, but still wouldn't proclaim Dist 9 as the best picture either. However Dist 9 definitely had more going for it than this picture did. Parents are better off letting their kids watch a "real" war movie than this boring time waster.

Karate Kid (2010) (Reviewed by Ed)

 

3.5/4 Stars

Several months ago when I heard that they were going to remake the classic movie "The Karate Kid" I was thinking, "Whaaa??"  Then I heard that Jaden Smith (son of Will and Jada Smith) was going to be playing the role of the karate kid and I was thinking what a travesty this is going to be.

 

Then I saw the first trailer of the movie…yeah I was blown away!  Every trailer I saw I thought what an amazing movie this HOPEFULLY will be.  I mean let's be honest; I wasn't expecting this movie to be as good as the original.  In many ways it isn't but in many ways it's better.

 

They follow the main storyline of the original 1984 movie where the boy moves from his home to a different location (Detroit to China), sees the pretty girl, gets in a fight with the wrong boy(s) and the maintenance man (Mr. Han) teaches him how to fight (even though the boy has no idea he is being taught Kung Fu.)  Wax on wax off, paint the fence, sand the floor and paint the house is replaced by take off your jacket, hang up jacket, take jacket off (the hook), drop jacket, pick up jacket…and so on. 

 

What was done well in the movie:

 

First and foremost is the fighting!  If you thought the fighting in the original Karate Kid was good just wait until you see what's in store in this version.  Sometimes it was hard to follow the fight sequences because of the camera angles and the closeness of the camera to the fighters but for the most part it was fabulous.  The fighting in this movie was intense and I had the same feeling of emotion today as when I saw the original movie back when I was a teen.  All I can say is "The Fighting Dragon" fighters would utterly destroy Johnny and his "Cobra Cai" band of brothers in a heartbeat.  In fact, some of the fighting was hard to watch cuz it got kind of brutal in some areas.

 

Jaden Smith's fighting.  I'm pretty sure that if you were to take the 12 year old Smith and put him up against the 16 year old Macchio (even though I'm sure he was closer to 20 when the movie came out) Smith would kick the living daylights out of Macchio!  The kid is a fighter and has some amazing talent when it comes to fighting!

 

Jackie Chan.  Yeah the guy has had several bombs in the theaters over the past several years (probably his best movie before this one was Rush Hour 2).  Chan shows that he can take a serious role and make it work.  The scene where he's sitting in the car with Dre (Smith) is heart wrenchingly good.

 

Cinematography was a big plus in this movie.  Not only do you get to see some of the "slums" of China but you also get to see some breathtaking scenery.  The scene where Mr. Han and Dre go up to drink from the Dragon Well is quite impressive!

 

Emotionally for me this movie did a great job.  There was enough humor and heartfelt moments scattered throughout the movie to fill a person to the rim.

 

What was wrong with the movie:

 

I'd have to say that one of the biggest weaknesses was Jaden Smith's acting.  He had some really good moments but then there were times where he showed that he still needs A LOT of practice in this business.  Probably the worst moment for me in this movie was when Dre Parker (Smith) was lying on the bed after he had been injured in the tournament and he asks Mr. Han (Chan) if he thought he could win the fight.  The scene in the 1984 version had Macchio pour his heart and soul out but Smith's performance in this scene had ZERO emotion and left you not wanting him to even get fixed to go out and continue fighting.  There were also other scenes scattered throughout the movie where the same thing happened.  But he's only 12 and it's only his second movie so I'm willing to look past this a little bit.

 

I thought the 2.5 hour length was a bit long by about 20 or so minutes and they could've shed some stuff in editing here and there.  But I never really thought, "This movie is dragging!"  I was never really bored in this movie.

 

Another thing that bothered me was the kissing scene.  Smith has a kissing scene in the movie with the girl that he's fallen for and it's kind of weird to watch two 12 year olds kiss.  Now the kiss is pretty mild (which is far better than the kiss that Macchio and Shue gave us in the parking lot of the "Golf and Stuff"- which has to be the most disgusting kiss in the history of cinema if you ask me!)  But still, I felt a little uncomfortable watching this scene.

 

One thing that fell short in this movie was the relationship that Dre and Mr. Han had with each other.  You can feel the connection they had at times but it never was up to par as it was for Daniel and Mr. Miagi in the original version.

 

Overall this is just a great movie.  I'd put this as my favorite movie of 2010 so far.  If you have young kids please know that there is some mild language throughout (I think I counted 4 swear words…mostly said by Smith.)

 

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 5
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 1 (Because I will buy it!)
Would I buy the movie? 5

 

"The Karate Kid" is rated PG and features some strong violent content and imagery, mostly involving pre-teens and teenagers (bullying, including beatings, and martial-arts action violence, such as kicking and punching), scattered profanity, some mildly suggestive references and slang terms, and derogatory language and slurs. Running time: 140 minutes.

Shutter Island (Reviewed by Chuck)

2.5 out of 4 stars

The ClearPlay Experience
After 2 hours and 15 minutes of twists and turns I was pretty tired. I definitely expected a lot more of a slasher-type movie and got a psyco-trippy thriller. Despite it's rating for disturbing violent content, language and some nudity, ClearPlay did another amazing job of keeping it clean. And to my surprise the skipped content didn't make the movie feel disjointed. I almost couldn't tell where anything was skipped. Although there was plenty of muted language, yet this wasn't even a remote distraction.

Shutter Island (Rated R) - with ClearPlay Shields at maximum - has a common sense rating of PG-13 - up until the last 20 minutes - if you're basing it on the content the dvd player skipped. However - despite the skipped content - I'd have to lean towards keeping this one rated R, based on a delusional woman has drown her children (about ages 8 - 14) and they show the pale, lifeless children being pulled from the lake and being placed on the shore. As she babbles on about keeping them for their personal dolls... very sick and disturbing. Very delusional.
If you are comfortable letting 13 - 18 year old teens watching R's you might want to re-consider. Perhaps as a parent I'm too sensitive now, but I found it gut-wrenching as I watched the scene with the kids and in the same instant the thought crossed my mind as to what I would be doing and thinking if I were in the same position. By the time you're at flashback with the kids, you know what's coming and you can skip right through this flashback scene and be just as good without seeing this part.

Looking beyond the MPAA

It's often thought amongst those in the LDS community that there is a commandment that R-rated movies are to not be watched. As explained in Is There an R-rated Movie Commandment? - by Orson Scott Card we're actually reminded that we're admonished to avoid pornography, violence, sex, profanity - and the like (pertaining to all media, not just movies.) Also to not give ourselves a false sense of security by holding to a law that was never handed down from the Latter-Day Saint prophets, by black-listing R's and white-listing all PG and PG-13 rated movies. In short if there is content that you don't deem appropriate or isn't - as Paul says - "beautiful, lovely or praise worthy," don't watch it, don't listen to it, avoid it... run away from it as fast as you can.

Which brings me to a new family-friendly device that tries to put movies back towards "beautiful, lovely or praise worthy:" the ClearPlay DVD player. In case you haven't read the little blurb in the upper right Simply put, ClearPlay is a DVD player that enables your family to enjoy all of the great Hollywood movies you’ve always wanted to watch—without all of the junk you don’t want. The DVD player has been programmed to skip points in the movie that contain inappropriate scenes or mute inappropriate dialogue - so you don't have to hover your finger over the fast forward and mute buttons.
After watching many movies on my ClearPlay DVD player I will never go back to watching movies without ClearPlay, if I can help it. Also, for many R-rated movies I've watched, ClearPlay has cleaned them up to be worthy of a PG-13 rating. ClearPlay has also done a very good job toning down a lot of PG-13 movies so I don't need to feel that a 13 year old would need to be 16 before being mature enough to watch some movies.

In my home if a PG-13 movie has content I don't want a 16 year old to watch I'll deem it R, Restricted - as the single letter acronym stands for. That being said, because the members of the MPAA rating panel are human too we should always remember that what the panel members slap on a movie isn't "movie rating gospel." As a parent I still dictate what is appropriate and what isn't. As for myself, I've even had a few people question me as to why - as an adult - I'd need something like this, and frankly I care about making sure I see movies without profanity and sex and all around a lack of inappropriate content.
One caveat about ClearPlay is that it can't change the overall tone of any movie. For example - I won't watch Brokeback Mountain, because it's about 2 gay men. Even without anything sexually related I still don't want to watch a movie about the relationship between 2 gay men. Nor can it remove the hate-fueled revenge between the 2 leading characters in Lakeview Terrace. It will remove the profanity and violent acts, but not remove the overall tone of animosity between the 2 characters.

When suggesting to a friend of mine - that has a ClearPlay DVD player - that she should watch R-rated "The Rock" on ClearPlay (it's an Alcatraz movie that I found to be very entertaining and void of anything close to being rated R, when viewed via ClearPlay), she said "Oh, I haven't come to the point where I'll watch R's on a ClearPlay DVD player." I then asked this person if they'd watch the "made for TV" version and she said "probably." Then I asked her what the difference was between the TV version that had content removed, versus the ClearPlay version that has virtually the same content removed. Needless to say, questioning her logic left her making excuses as to why an R that was cleaned up for TV was acceptable to watch and the ClearPlay version was not.

I find it interesting that there is a security blanket in a cleaned-up-for-TV version that this person didn't find when considering watching the same movie on ClearPlay. I guess there is safety in familiarity. How about yourself, assuming you have an aversion to R-rated movies, how quick would you be to watch a TV version of "Back Draft" or "The Matrix" instead of the version on ClearPlay? After all skipped content is still skipped content.
I hope no one assumes I'm saying that ClearPlay makes every movie in the G - R spectrum acceptable to watch, I'm simply saying that for the most part ClearPlay does an excellent job of cleaning up of the inappropriate content in a movie and can enhance your DVD watching experiences, but remember that if something has an overall tone that is disagreeable, ClearPlay can't cleanup the tone. It can't make the 2 lovers in Brokeback Mountain heterosexual.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Reviewed by Ed)

(2.75 out of 4 stars)

“I've seen its power with my own eyes. Releasing the Sand turns back time. Only the holder of the Dagger is aware what's happened.”

Set in the mystical lands of Persia, a rogue prince and a mysterious princess race against dark forces to safeguard an ancient dagger capable of releasing the Sands of Time -- a gift from the gods that can reverse time and allow its possessor to rule the world.

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name. Learning from Tamina the true motives behind Alamut's invasion, Dastan must embark on a perilous quest to stop an evil mastermind's plot for ultimate power with a mystical weapon that can control the very fabric of time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0473075/plotsummary


Leading up to this show I was very excited to see this movie. From just the trailers alone I thought this was going to be one of the best movies in a long time. But after hearing some of the buzz around the movie of people that actually saw the movie, sadly my expectations dropped quickly; going from what I was hoping to be one of the best movies of the summer to just hoping that I would at least get my money’s worth on my movie ticket (my ticket was free so I’m sure there’s a lame joke in there somewhere).


What was good about the movie:

I really enjoyed the action scenes in this movie which were choreographed well and there were plenty of swashbuckling fights and chase scenes to keep a tired 40 year old entertained. The acrobat and “Parkour” chase scenes were fun to watch.

(What is “Parkour”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour).


The special effects (SFX) didn’t disappoint either. ILM was the company that did the SFX and they did a good job for the most part. The SFX were about as good as you would see in the “Pirates” movies but not up to the standards of the “Star Wars” movies or even “Avatar” but still good nonetheless.

The acting, although not great, was still good enough to get you through the movie and not be disappointed.

There’s enough eye candy in this movie for both men and women with Jake Gyllenhaal’s ripped abs and biceps and the beauty of Gemma Arterton to keep both sexes happy for almost 2 hours.

The brightest point of the movie, in my opinion, was Alfred Molina. He really saves the movie. Every scene he is in he does a great job. This is one of the first movies I remember him being in where he plays the “comedy relief” character and he does a good job. Hopefully his star will rise and he will do more characters like this.


What wasn’t good about the movie:

Probably first and foremost was the editing of the movie. It seemed there were times where you thought “did they skip a scene?” Makes you wonder if they were rushing a few areas to edit the movie down and didn’t go back and check what they just did. Some transitions from one scene to another were choppy at best.


The plot lacked fluidity. I think this goes along with the editing problems as they go hand in hand. The flow of the movie seemed chaotic and in need of some help but it wasn’t as bad as the editing was.


I’m giving this movie 2.75/4 stars and I probably would’ve given this movie 3/4 stars if I wasn’t so tired while watching the movie. (I saw a 10:25pm showing and I was pretty tired leading up to the show.)

Overall this was a fun “popcorn” movie that most people will enjoy. Will it be good enough to see again? Only time will tell. Disney will probably make enough money from this movie to be happy but probably not enough to be thinking “sequel baby!!”

The movie is rated PG-13 but honestly if it wasn’t for a few quick innuendos within the first 30-60 minutes and the more extreme violence in the last 30-40 minutes of the movie this movie could’ve been a PG movie. I’m excited to see this movie on ClearPlay as I can already tell this will be one that should flow nicely (for the most part) when watching it on ClearPlay.


Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 2.5
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 5
Would I buy the movie? 2.5


“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" is rated PG-13 and features strong violent content and imagery (arrow fire, swordplay and knife play, including slashings and stabbings, creature attacks, fiery and explosive mayhem, and violence against women and children), brief gory and bloody imagery, suggestive language and references (mostly innuendo), derogatory language and slurs (some of them sexist in nature, others based on ethnicity and social standing), brief drug content (poisons and toxins), a brief scene depicting violent interrogation, and glimpses of nude artwork (statues). Running time: 116 minutes.

Public Enemies (reviewed by Chuck)

2.5/4 stars

From http://bestbuy.partner.commonsensemedia.org/partner/bestbuy/682683?h=488

Parents need to know
Parents need to know that this 1930s-set crime drama starring Johnny Depp as infamous bank robber John Dillinger is full of very realistic violence that some will find hard to take. Gun battles are frequent and intense, and characters suffer gory wounds and die. A woman is beaten during an interrogation scene; other characters are shot down in cold blood. Although there's not too much in the way of sexual content (aside from one somewhat steamy love scene with no nudity) or language (there's one use of "f--k," plus a smattering of other salty words) for an R-rated film, the movie's focus on the differences and similarities between cops and crooks yields complex role models and messages. Some law enforcement officers are depicted as corrupt and cruel, while others are dedicated, dignified, and diligent; similarly, there are cold, calm professionals among the film's criminals, as well as hair-trigger sociopaths. Expect lots of period-accurate smoking and drinking.

Synopsis
In 1933, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) began a 14-month crime wave that started with his release from prison and ended with his death on the streets of Chicago. Hailed by the public as a modern-day Robin Hood -- or at least a charismatic criminal who struck back against the banks that many Americans blamed for the Great Depression -- Dillinger was a celebrity in his day, as was Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the lawman that J. Edgar Hoover set on Dillinger's trail. As Dillinger and Purvis are both driven to extremes by outside forces, their kill-or-be-killed hunt plays out.

The ClearPlay Experience
2+ hours of gangster mayhem, with some cat and mouse and a nude-free love scene left me... well, rather bored until near the end. Generally speaking, R-rated movies viewed on ClearPlay with the highest filter settings have a tenancy to be jumpy because skipped inappropriate scenes or cuts that mesh parts together that some times don't flow well, which surprisingly wasn't the case with Public Enemies - this movie is naturally disjointed, which was quite disappointing. This is one of the cases where truth really is stranger than fiction.

Public Enemies (Rated R) - with ClearPlay shields set at maximum - has a common sense rating of PG-13. ClearPlay leaves you with enough blood-free violence to allow pretty much anyone in the PG-13 demographic free to enjoy watching this gangster flick. If bank robbing and automatic weapon dog fights are a concern for yourself or younger viewers, it would be a good time to review the real stroy of John Dillinger and to keep in mind that the shoot outs in Public Enemies are probably not much of a stretch from what really happened when Dillinger robbed from the rich and didn't give to the poor.

Shrek Forever After (Shrek 4) - reviewed by Ed

3/4 Stars

“Show me the roar!!” Well it’s finally here. The 4th and final installment of the Shrek franchise made its way into theaters. Shrek 4 takes us back to a land far far away where Shrek and Fiona are living in the swamp raising their 3 kids. The beginning of the movie goes back in time and shows Fiona’s parents attempting to make a deal with Rumpelstiltskin (I will call him ‘Rumple’ from here on out) to free their daughter from the tower in the Dragon’s Keep. In return for the safe rescue of their daughter, the king and queen would have to turn the kingdom of Far Far Away over to Rumple. Well the deal doesn’t go through because they found out that an ogre had just saved Fiona and Rumple is left without the kingdom that he has long for.

Go to present day and Shrek is going through some problems of his own. The doldrums of everyday life are starting to take its toll on the once feared ogre. Shrek longs for the days where he was feared and can do what he wanted whenever he wanted. There’s a series of scenes that reminded me of the movie “Groundhog Day” with Bill Murray where Shrek lives the same day over and over and over. Kids wake up parents, he feeds them, changes diapers, tries to relax and take a mud bath but the outhouse is clogged, Donkey comes over with the wife and kids for playtime, tour buses driving through Shrek’s swamp so people can look at Shrek, feeds the kids, puts them to bed. Only to find that it’s the same thing day after day after day. The day comes when the 3 kids have their first birthday party and Shrek finds himself wanting more. Needless to say he freaks out at the birthday party, and after getting into an argument with Fiona, he storms out. Well little did he know that Rumple was listening to his argument and realizes that this is the perfect situation where he can not only get revenge on Shrek but get the kingdom of Far Far Away at the same time. He convinces Shrek to sign a contract that would give Shrek one day to do whatever he wants and that this day would be before he even met Donkey or Fiona or Puss in Boots, etc. But as Rumple tells him, “You have to give a day to get a day.” So Rumple talks Shrek into giving him a day when he was a baby and that no one would miss a day as when he was young.


Once Shrek signs his name he is taken away and begins his one day adventure. Well he finally realizes that not everything is as it seems. None of his friends knows who he is, Far Far Away is in shambles, the swamp and tree that Shrek lived in is no more, Donkey is scared of Shrek, Puss in Boots is a fat cat and Fiona is the leader of the Ogre resistance and has no desire to be with Shrek and witches are now capturing Ogres and bringing them to Rumple, who by the way is the new king of Far Far Away. Rumple tells Shrek that at the end of the day he will die and his kids will no longer exist and Fiona will never be a part of his life. What Shrek didn’t realize was that Rumple took one day away from Shrek as a baby, but that one day was the day that he was born. Which means that Shrek was never around to save Fiona and so that changed the events in time and the king and queen DID sign the contract for the safe return of their daughter, thus giving the kingdom of Far Far Away to Rumple. Shrek has until morning to help save the ogre population, get Fiona’s trust and have “true love’s kiss” sealed upon him from her as well to break the spell of the contract.


I went in with pretty low expectations for this movie, (anyone that had seen ‘Shrek The Third’ knows why). I have to say the movie was better than I expected…much better than I expected. It still lacked the humor and originality that the first two had but it still had its moments of greatness. This movie also had what the previous 3 installments lacked…heart! The storyline had more emotion to it as Shrek realized that he had the perfect life and as Fiona told him at the birthday party, “You have a wife and kids that love you and friends that look up to you and adore you.” There are parts of this movie, and I’ll be honest, that made me choke up a bit in a few areas. The message of the movie was a good one which Shrek himself sums up, “I didn’t know what I had until I lost it.”


In typical Hollywood fashion, (because let’s face it, Hollywood has run out of originality), this movie’s plot was taken from an already well known movie, the Christmas classic, “It’s A Wonderful Life.” I won’t go into the story of that movie but if you’ve seen “Wonderful Life” and then see “Shrek 4” you’ll see the similarities.

There is the typical potty humor that we see in all 3 movies but that only happens within a 5 minute montage of the day after day of Shrek’s life in the beginning of the movie. I only remember one swear word and that was Donkey yelling “I’m being assnapped!” as Shrek was chasing him through the forest to get Donkey to listen to him.

As for the 3D, I decided to save money and see it in 2D and I didn’t feel I would’ve missed out on anything spectacular by seeing it in 3D.

Another thing that this movie lacked that the other movies had was singing within the movie and also the big dance at the end that they do was nowhere to be found. Who knows, maybe they’ll add that scene as a deleted or extra scene when the DVD is released.



Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 3
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 2
Would I buy the movie? 4


"Shrek Forever After" is rated PG and features crude humor and references (scatological and flatulence humor), some off-color language (innuendo and some suggestive talk), animated violent content (creature attacks, sword play and arrow fire, brawling, fiery and explosive mayhem, and violence against women, as well as some slapstick), derogatory language and slurs, and brief drug content (toxic gases). Running time: 93 minutes.

Gimmicks vs Quality

4-D dimensional movie viewing has arrived: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10844281

The dictionary says that a gimmick is "an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal." By definition, this 4-D movie experience - with moving seats - is simply a gimmick and truly doesn't add to the quality of the entertainment that the movie brings to the viewer. Terrific movies will still be terrific without the moving seats, or 3-D glasses for that matter.

While moving seats may not add to the quality of the movie, but will definitely make up-and-coming action flicks and similarly related genre movies more fun, lets examine what really makes a good movie. All the gimmicks that can be invented to make a traditional 2-D movie more rich in displaying on-screen graphics with the latest-and-greatest 3-D technology and more real in a 4-D experience will really continually be just that: simply gimmicks. At least until the real-life version of the Star Trek The Next Generation Hollodeck is invented.

This new 4-D experience is basically doubling your admission and it's a technology that will never likely be put in mass production for home use. Can anyone really justify the cost? Does anyone really want to justify going to see Iron Man 3 for $20.00 a person, only to have a your seat jiggle around? I must admit, I would actually love to experience it, myself, but at nearly $20.00?


Let's contrast the 3-D & 4-D experience with what consumer's probably find more value in: quality entertainment. I think that most parents (and even a fair amount of adults without kids) would agree that ensuring the movies they and their children watch need to be free from content that... well, really isn't necessary to get the point across, like sex, profanity and the like.

We have all probably had embarrassing, even cringe-worthy moments where we thought "Why did they include that" What will we remember more, the jiggly seats or that embarrassing moment? What's going to create a deeper impact?
If you've got teenagers you've likely heard "There's a great movie, with just this one part... But it's really short!" Or perhaps you are leery about something that is coming up and you are hovering over the skip button on the remote... and then perhaps forgot to use the button even.


In the end it really does come down to the preference of the person. I know people that would snub something like the ClearPlay DVD player that I've been referencing, saying it's censorship, etc and would say that jiggly seats are the wave of the future for movies. But when it really matters, what is it that you are going to value more: vibrating seats, or skipping that embarrassing, awkward or offensive content? Do you value the experience that is $15.00 - $20.00 per movie viewing, or skipped content for nearly any movie you can rent or buy, that can be obtained and viewed in anyone's home that has a ClearPlay DVD player?

Iron Man 2 (reviewed by Ed)

(2.75 out of 4 stars)

Six months after the end of the first movie, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has used his Iron Man armor to bring about a negotiated peace treaty between the major super powers of the world, and his immense popularity with the general public is only furthered when he fulfills his father's dream by opening the "Stark Expo", to showcase all the latest inventions that will benefit the world. Stark is, however, still vilified by the United States government, and Senator Stern (Gary Shandling) in particular, who demands that he hand his armor technology over for military application.

Stark refuses, publicly shaming rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) in the process by highlighting his own failed attempts at recreating the technology. All is not well in Stark's life, however: he has discovered that the palladium in the arc reactor keeping his heart beating has begun to poison his body, slowly killing him, and all attempts to find a substitute element have failed. Slowly going off the rails as a consequence of what he believes to be his impending death, he appoints his former personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) CEO of Stark Industries, replacing her with Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228705/synopsis



Well what can I say about Iron Man 2? I saw this review earlier today and it sums up my thoughts of this movie in one paragraph:

“Coming out of the theater, the thing that stuck the most in my craw is how little action there is in this flick. I don't know, guys, but when I go see a movie called "Iron Man 2", I expect a whole lot of bang for my buck. I could forgive the previous film's relative lack of action because, as the first episode of the franchise, it had to set up everything about Tony Stark and how he became Iron Man. But now that the origin story is out of the way, shouldn't this be the big thrill-a-minute payoff?”

http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/review.asp?R=R0001359



I couldn’t have said it better myself! I, like so many others, was excited for the next installment of the Iron Man franchise that took us all by surprise 2 years ago when we all sat there in the theater in amazement at what we were watching. Not since the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie was I surprised at how a movie can come out of nowhere and surprise audiences all over the world.

Flash forward 2 years and now you add hype and pressure to this successful franchise and geeks across the world are drooling at the fact that Downey, Jr. is once again donning the Iron Man suit and Gwyneth Paltrow tries desperately to keep him (and his ego) in check. Add Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel Jackson and Mickey Rourke and you’ve got some big names coming into the mix.



Let me start with what was good about this movie: SOME good action. I’m not saying this movie is void of action, and there are moments where the action is well done. Robert Downey, Jr, once again shows why he is a great actor. In my opinion he doesn’t miss a beat from the first movie. His egocentric dialogue is so well done I found myself wanting the scenes to continue on because it was so enjoyable. I wasn’t big on Scarlett Johannson's character but her fight scene towards the end was like Jason Bourne on steroids! That 5 minute action sequence was the best action in the entire movie. The dialogue was well written in the movie and there was good humor throughout.



Where the movie fell short: The middle hour or so of the movie was, at least to me, kind of boring. I just kept wanting some sort of action or fight scene or something to spice it up. There were too many plot points going on in the movie and it was choppy and didn’t flow well. Gwyneth Paltrow's character Pepper Potts was a little annoying compared to the first Iron Man. I was disappointed to see Tony Stark and Pepper Potts finally kiss. I thought the tension between those two actually added to their characters. Sam Jackson's acting was not good. Once you see the movie you’ll know what I mean. When the movie FINALLY got to the major fight scene it never really had the “wow factor” and just kind of fell short. The last battle between Iron Man and his side kick - War Machine vs. Ivan - the Russian - was over before you knew it. After they won the battle I was thinking, “that’s it?” Those two words sum up my Iron Man 2 experience: “That’s it?” Yes, folks…that’s it.



Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 2
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 3 (If I don’t end up buying it)
Would I buy the movie? 3.5 (Mainly because I own the first one and I don’t want to break up a set. But we’ll see.)

(Iron Man 2 is rated PG-13 and features strong violent content and imagery (gunplay and shootings, brawling, fisticuffs, hand-to-hand and martial-arts combat, fiery and explosive mayhem, vehicular mayhem, and violence against women), suggestive language and references (slang and innuendo), scattered strong profanity, brief drug content (use of drugs and antidotes, including an injection), brief bloody imagery, derogatory language and slurs, and brief glimpses of nude art (statues). Running time: 124 minutes.)

Think you are immune?

"SEC Porn Investigation Nets Dozens"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/04/eye_opener_porn_and_federal_wo.html?referrer=emaillink

Goes to show that NO ONE is immune from temptation. How much is peace of mind worth to you? http://familyfilter.googlepages.com

2012 (Ed)

Dr. Adrian Helmsley, part of a worldwide geophysical team investigating the effect on the earth of radiation from unprecedented solar storms, learns that the earth's core is heating up. He warns U.S. President Thomas Wilson that the crust of the earth is becoming unstable and that without proper preparations for saving a fraction of the world's population, the entire race is doomed. Meanwhile, writer Jackson Curtis stumbles on the same information. While the world's leaders race to build "arks" to escape the impending cataclysm, Curtis struggles to find a way to save his family. Meanwhile, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes of unprecedented strength wreak havoc around the world. Written by Jim Beaver

Well what can I say about 2012…going into this movie I thought, “Okay Roland Emmerich is doing this movie so it’s gonna have some lame Hollywood global warming aspect to the show. Well that didn’t come out in the movie so I was happy about that. The acting was okay at best and I even found that the CG was lackluster at times. My daughter was watching it with me and she said a few times, “That looks really fake!” There were parts of the movie that were pretty cool…the “Escape from Los Angeles” scene was kind of fun to watch but still had a cheesy factor of about 7.5 out of 10. I mean how many times are they going to fly in between a building that is about to fall on their plane and they just BARELY make it out alive. I kept thinking, “Just pull back on the gear and fly straight up you idiot to avoid all the falling objects!!”

The acting was mediocre and probably the worst acting in the movie was by Danny Glover who played President Thomas Wilson. Every time the guy was on screen it was like pulling my thumbnails back it was so painful. Surprisingly the most annoying character was also one of my favorite characters and that was Charlie Frost (played by Woody Harrelson) who plays the radio personality that knows what’s going on and tries to warn as many people as will listen to him, and when the time comes for him to meet his doom he does so with joy and happiness.

John Cusack pretty much acted like he acts in EVERY role he plays, whether it’s an action movie or a romantic comedy. He does a good job but I’ve seen his acting before in every other show.

The plot was pretty basic for me and didn’t keep me excited to watch the movie. In fact it took me about 4 days to get through the entire movie cuz it didn’t grab my attention.


The ClearPlay Experience
I actually thought that ClearPlay did a pretty good job of taking out the language and excessive violence in the movie. There wasn’t many “skips” in the show which made the movie flow well. Most of the stuff it took out was language. I never felt as if I was missing out on some plot point so that’s always a bonus.


Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again? 2
Would I buy the movie? 1


(2012 is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action, some scary images, and language)

Didn't know "that" was in there....

While at the barber this weekend they had (George Clooney's) Ocean's 11 playing. I had seen this for the first time last month on my ClearPlay and was more than happy to sit and watch Ocean's while waiting for my turn in the barber chair.

Little did I know that I was about to be exposed to content that ClearPlay had taken out, a scene with a Las Vegas stripper show. I was in shock, mentally going through why I didn't remember that as part of the movie I saw last month and almost in the same instant it dawned on me that ClearPlay skipped it, which made me even the more happy that I have the ClearPlay, because I definitely didn't want to see that in my movie.


Some reading this specific post might say "As an adult, why would you care if that is in a movie you are watching without your kids?" Simple, I don't care to see sex and other types of similar content in movies. There are adults that do care about what they see in a movie.

Chuck

SUNSHINE (2007) (Chuck)

From http://bestbuy.partner.commonsensemedia.org/partner/bestbuy/356729?h=488

Synopsis
It's 2057, and, as narrator Capa (Cillian Murphy) puts it, "Our sun is dying." In order save the earth, Capa and seven other astronauts board the spaceship Icarus II on a mission involving a stellar bomb. After a 16 month journey, they enter the "dead zone" (no more communication with earth) and discover the first Icarus, lost seven years earlier: Should they check it out, recover the ship's bomb, or just pass it by? The decisions they make are shaped by errors in calculations and guesses at their own futures. Arguments increase as options dwindle. Engineer Mace (Chris Evans) gets into psychical altercations with Capa; biologist Corazon (Michelle Yeoh) guards her greenhouse, and comm officer Harvey (Troy Garity) blames others for what goes wrong. As Captain Kaneda (Hiroyuki Sanada) tries to keep the crew on track, the pilot Cassie (Rose Byrne) complains of the occasional "excess of manliness." Yet they need to work together if they want to survive.

Parents need to know
Parents need to know that this film isn't for kids; in addition to some brief, very violent scenes, it features extended discussions of intellectual and philosophical issues. Violence includes shots showing the effects of intense sunlight on human flesh (burned, bubbly, and scarred), a couple of vigorous fistfights between crewmembers, the very affecting death of a crewmember who is accidentally loosed in space (he freezes, face in close-up, and his face and then his shatter); a suicide victim appears so his slashed wrists are visible and blood is everywhere (crewmembers display upset); bodies in previous ship appear huddled together and burned to ash; final chase/fight is extended and violent; final explosions are fiery, loud, and devastating (also rather poetic). There are repeated uses of "f--k," with some other profanity.

The ClearPlay Experience
The first 60 minutes of this 90 minute space voyage, the movie was very cleverly done and had very little skipping. Lots of profanity however is scattered throughout the movie - and was 100% muted or skipped by ClearPlay.

However, for the final 30 minutes I kept wishing they'd just get it over with and finally reach the sun and roll the credits. This clever thriller all of the sudden makes an unexpected turn and changes the movie into a slasher.

Because the director made the last 30 minutes a slasher, ClearPlay did an excellent job of keeping the violence to a minimum, however due to the excessive amount of violence it made those last minutes a little hard to follow, due to the large amounts of skipped content. It also has poor cinematography choices with blurred and distorted images which make it had to not only follow, because of skipped content, but I couldn't make out half of what I was looking at.

SUNSHINE (Rated R) - with ClearPlay filtering set on the highest filter settings - has a common sense rating of PG-13. With or without a ClearPlay parents shoud screen this - especially the last 30 minutes - before allowing younger viewers to watch SUNSHINE.

How to Train Your Dragon (Ed)

(3.5 out of 4 stars)

“I’ll pack my undies!” How To Train Your Dragon is the story of a young boy, Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel), who lives in a village that is frequently being attacked by dragons. Hiccup’s father, Stoick (Gerard Butler), is the leader of the village and head dragon killer. Hiccup wishes to prove to his father that he can kill a dragon too but, unlike his father, he doesn’t have the skills to do so. When he thinks he’s shot down one of the most difficult and threatening dragons to kill he goes in search of the injured dragon.

Eventually he finds the dragon but realizes that he can’t kill the beast and lets it go free. He finds out that the dragon, which he later gives the nickname “Toothless”, can’t fly due to an injured tail. He ultimately befriends “Toothless” and uses his building skills to make a fake wing tail, along with a saddle and harness for him to ride his new found friend.

Back at home, many of the leaders decide they need to go in search for the dragon’s nest to fight them on their turf so that their village can be done with the dragons once and for all. While Stoick and other men are gone, Hiccup is reluctantly put into Warrior School where young villagers can learn to fight dragons. None of the other teens in the program like Hiccup and think he is a loser and that he’s going to get himself killed due to his lack of fighting skills. Fortunately Hiccup uses the knowledge he obtains from spending time with Toothless and other dragons to tame the dragons the kids are tested to fight. When the men return from their failed journey, Stoick learns that his son is the talk of the village.

Hiccup realizes that the dragons are not much different from his own people. They have families and want to live a free life. He finds out that the dragons themselves are terrorized by a much more ominous creature and that if the dragons don’t pay homage to this creature, the dragon colony will be in danger themselves.

How To Train Your Dragon is filled with everything you would want in an animated feature. There is humor for kids and adults, amazing animation, great action scenes and a good message for all of us to learn from. “Dragon” is one of those films that your kids will want to see more than once and most likely you will want to go back and see it with them as well without any hesitation. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie as did my kids. In fact, they are still quoting lines from the movie. I was only able to see this movie in 2D but I think if I would’ve seen it in 3D I would’ve given it 3.75 stars out of 4.

For the most part the film is pretty kid friendly. "All hell is going to break loose!” is the one and only swear word in the entire movie. There are a few other things that kids may not pick up if they’re not paying close attention. For example, one scene has Stoick give Hiccup a Viking helmet that was made out of his late wife’s breast plate. Hiccup replies, “Thanks for the breast hat.”

All in all it’s pretty family friendly, but make sure you don’t bring the really young ones or even kids that might be a little on the sensitive side due to the intense fight scenes and a few scenes where things jump out at you (especially in 3D). There were a few parts in 2D where I found myself startled a bit.

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:
1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 5
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 5 (If I don’t end up buying it)
Would I buy the movie? 5

(How To Train Your Dragon is rated PG for sequences of intense action, some scary images, and brief mild language)

DISTRICT 9 (By Chuck)

(3/4 stars)


http://bestbuy.partner.commonsensemedia.org/partner/bestbuy/703378?h=488

Synopsis

Set in an alternate present, DISTRICT 9 takes place in South Africa, where, 20 years ago, an alien ship came to rest in the skies above Johannesburg -- with more than a million workers and near-slaves aboard. Now, after two decades of uneasy co-existence, the local government is moving the alien "Prawns" from their ramshackle slums in District 9 to a new camp 200 kilometers away. But as part of the forced relocation, a government bureaucrat discovers that District 9 has secrets of its own.


Parents need to know

Parents need to know that this gritty, buzzworthy sci-fi epic filmed in South Africa (and produced by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson) is full of extremely realistic, bloody violence, including severed limbs, lots of bodies, piles of high-tech weapons, and even torture. The movie's aliens aren't cute or appealing in any way -- they're scary-looking, insectoid creations with complex biologies and lives. Expect constant strong language (especially "f--k"), as well as some drinking, smoking, and discussion of sex.

The ClearPlay Experience
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Not as much as some of the critics, that have touted it as mind-blowing. As described above, it's a violent, profanity-filled movie. Yes, there is lots of violence, but the language is everywhere in this movie. And ClearPlay did an excellent job on making sure I didn't have the profane language shoved down my throat.

Unfortunately ClearPlay only works as good as the movie allows it to. As far as the violence is concerned, the first half is full of so much skipped content that it's almost distracting and made some things hard to follow. The skipping of violent content, and the like, didn't remove the overall message of the movie, in that we - as (short-sited) humans - tend to oppress things we don't understand or do not make an effort to understand.
The violent content alluded to in the above description is almost entirely absent with ClearPlay's "shields at maximum." I didn't at any time witness any thing gory, bloody or otherwise nauseatingly violent. Violence was eluded to, you could tell what type of content was being lead up to, but then the disturbing, violent, or gross content was skipped.

District 9 (Rated R) - set on the highest filter settings - has a common sense rating of PG-13, but parents should still be very cautious in letting the kids watch this one, due to the mature themes of oppression, segregation and torture-like experimentation. Before taking time to watch District 9 with your teenager, it would be a good opportunity to set up the movie by discussing and educating your teen(s) on racial inequality and oppression, so that District 9 can illustrate the reality of oppression, torture and experimentation content that exists outside the common family life, most of us enjoy.

Clash of the Titans, review (By Ed)

(2.75 out of 4 stars)

Can’t we all just get along? Clash of the Titans is the story of Perseus, a Demigod, who is caught in the middle of a war between the gods; Zeus (Liam Neeson), Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Poseidon (Danny Hudsen).

Sam Worthington plays Perseus, the unknowing son of Zeus, who is raised by a fisherman named Spyros (Pete Posthlewaite) and his family. The gods are finding that they are losing their power because the mortals aren’t praying to them anymore. So Hades makes a pact with Zeus to let him go down and bring pain and suffering on them so that, in turn, they will be humbled and begin to pray to the gods again. Hades ends up releasing his wrath upon the mortals of Earth and ends up killing Perseus’ family (intentionally or not is a good question to ask). Perseus swears revenge upon the gods for this destruction. “Everyone I loved was killed by the gods!”

Perseus is taken to the city of Argos where the king and queen vow to never pray to the gods again. Hades shows up and announces that the only way to save the city of Argos from destruction and eventually from the underworld monster, the Kraken, is to sacrifice the daughter of the king and queen of Argos.

Perseus bands together with his own “fellowship” to go to the underworld and attempt to destroy Hades. Along the way this “band of brothers” battle each other along with large scorpions, Medusa and eventually the Kraken itself. But don’t get too excited, it seems like it took the Kraken longer to come out of the water than it did to battle him. The scorpion scene and the scene in Medusa’s lair were played out well though. I found those scenes to have a good combination of action and suspense.

I went into this movie with pretty low expectations and found the movie to be better than expected. The acting in the movie is hit and miss. Sam Worthington gives his typical average performance that we’ve seen in a few other movies he’s been in (Terminator Salvation and Avatar). In fact in one point in the movie he is ‘rallying the troops’ and it reminded me of the scene in Avatar where he was pleading with the people of Pandora to stand up and fight for their liberties and freedoms. Ralph Fiennes character of Hades seemed VERY similar to his popular role of Harry Potter’s ‘Voldemort’. Liam Neeson did a good job as Zeus but his glowing and blurry countenance got kind of annoying after awhile.

Probably the biggest disappointment in the movie was the 3D effects. The movie was not filmed originally for 3D but the studio added the 3D afterwards and it’s fairly obvious. There were times where it seemed blurry even with the 3D glasses on. Some of the battle sequences were hard to follow because of the lackluster 3D effects. I would suggest anyone who sees this movie to see it in 2D and save themselves the extra few dollars. In fact I would’ve given this movie 3 out of 4 stars if I would’ve seen it in 2D.

Rating of whether I would see the movie again:

1 = Definitely not!
2 = Probably not.
3 = Maybe.
4 = Probably.
5 = Absolutely!

Would I see the movie again in the theaters? 2
Will I rent it on DVD and watch it at home? 4
Would I buy the movie? 2

(Clash of the Titans is rated PG-13 for fantasy action violence, some frightening images, brief language and brief sensuality.)