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.)