OVER-PRICED OPINIONS: Are We Prepared For the World's Finest?

San Diego Comic-Con; the annual gathering of celebrities and fanboys alike to pay tribute to the world of comics, film, art, and gaming. Each year, thousands attend this highly-praised and heavily-marketed celebration of everything geeky....and each year, I hang my head in shame because I missed it.

All is not lost, however! For those had to sit out on this year's mega meet-up of cosplayers and the creative minds who inspire them, we were still treated to what the convention had in store through a little thing known as the Internet. We may not have received the information at the same time as those who attended each panel, but it wasn't long before news of each teaser trailer and special guest popped up on social media sites.

One of things I look forward to the most about Comic-Con is what upcoming movies and franchises will be previewed there. This year, many companies were pulling out the big guns. Marvel, especially, had a lot to share with their fans. The Avengers 2, Thor: The Dark World, The Amazing Spiderman 2, and even the Guardians of the Galaxy all got their time in the spotlight. However, it was DC who had people talking the most.

Zack Snyder, director of 300, Watchmen, and this year's Man of Steel, announced that there will be a sequel to Superman's latest reboot in theaters some time in 2015. Not only will the film include the continuing adventures of Clark Kent and his Kryptonian alter ego, but another DC favorite will make an appearance. During the Warner Brothers panel, fans were blessed with a small teaser trailer for the movie's follow up, which contained one single, yet powerful, image; the outline of a bat shadowing the Superman symbol.

That's right, ladies and gentleman! The Dark Knight will be a part of the next Superman movie, and Snyder will return to the director's chair. Not much else is known about the film, however. Questions have already been raised as to exactly who will play Batman. The Dark Knight veteran Christian Bale has public relinquished the cape and cowl, and Joseph Gordon Levitt has yet to be confirmed as the next cape crusader, even after the ending to The Dark Knight Rises implied that his character, John (or "Robin") Blake will inherit the responsibility. It has also not been made official as to whether or not Henry Cavill will reprise his role as Superman in the upcoming movie.

Many others are questioning where the writers of the untitled Man of Steel sequel plan to take their inspiration for its storyline and script. Before the brief teaser was shown at the Warner Brothers panel, Henry Lennix (General Swanwick from Man of Steel) was introduced and read a passage from Frank Miller's graphic novel, The Dark Knight Returns. There has been no word as to whether or not it will play a key part in the movie's plot, or whether or not they will lean more towards the classic World's Finest comics. With the increasingly dark and gritty tone of the past few DC films (overlooking Green Lantern....we're going to pretend that one never happened), Miller's critically acclaimed works would seem like the way to go. But until more information is available, fans will simply be left to speculate and hope for the best.

Now that you know the facts, here are my two cents on the development of the Batman/Superman crossover film.

I will start off by saying that Batman as always been my favorite superhero (or masked vigilante for those who do not consider him "super"). I did not grow up with the comic books, but spawned my love from the nostalgic Burton and Schumacher films. Even though I have come to realize the many faults found in Schumacher's Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, I cannot deny that I adored them as a kid. The revolutionary Batman: the Animated Series was another piece in what made me fall in love with not only the dark tales from Gotham City, but the entire superhero genre. And, of course, my obsession with the Dark Knight and his Rogues Gallery was reinvented with Christopher Nolan's re-imaginings. Recently, I have been making an effort to make myself more familiar with the universes found in both classic and current comics, but I must admit that I am not a complete expert in the area.

As for Superman...well, let's just say he's not my favorite crime-fighter. I never exposed myself to his comics or films, with the exception of my curiosity leading me to watch 2006's Superman Returns. That wasn't the brightest idea I've ever had. I wasn't expecting much out of Man of Steel, and while it is no way the best comic book movie ever created, it did manage to make the character interesting for me.

With that said, most of my opinions will be based on my personal knowledge of characters and track record of the superhero genre.

Like many fans, I am incredibly excited about what is to come. The idea of seeing two of the most well-known and loved superheroes battling it out/working together in one film is a dream come true. The Avengers has proved to us that a quality team-up film can be accomplished, but this is also where one of the problems lie. Marvel took its time to develop the universe of each character with their own story and reoccurring connections between one another through Nick Furry and S.H.I.E.L.D. Batman has had three movies in their new, gritty universe to lay out characters and tones. Superman, on the other hand, has not received the same treatment. True, he has only one new movie under his belt like Captain America and Thor had before The Avengers went into production, but it seems like we have barely scratched the surface of the hero himself. We've seen the origin story and the trials of him accepting who he really is. Yet, we have only just begun to see the hero emerge. The Marvel films made each origin story with The Avengers in mind; providing a well-balanced mix of origin, character development, action, and heroism in order to make sure the character was molded enough to match that of his fellow teammates. Nolan's Batman films were not made to lead into a meeting with Superman, or any other members of the Justice League for that matter (we'll get to that a little later).

On the subject of Superman only having one movie, what is the rush to bring in Batman so soon? Snyder's Man of Steel failed to match the financial or critical success as Nolan's Batman films, but that in no way means it was a bad movie. Apart for the excessive fight scenes toward the end of the movie, I thought it was a solid retelling of the character's origin story. Are the studios so afraid that, because it didn't quite live up to expectations, they have to bring in something that has already proven will fill the theater seats? Tom Preston, an animator and creator of "So, You're a Cartoonist?", made an interesting point when talked about DC's fear of taking risks in a DeviantArt journal entry. "People like Batman and they'll like seeing Batman fight Superman," Preston writes. "Forget the whole idea of building a relationship with Lois Lane or fighting off Lex Luthor, get Batman in there because The Dark Knight was a huge hit." Marvel has found an overwhelming amount of success through producing movies with different directors and styles, while still trying to maintain the prospect that these heroes will soon be brought together in one film. DC, making their movies apart without the preconceived prospect of a Justice League film, seem to be too afraid to take such risks. The same formulas, styles, etc. have been their saving grace for a while, but is it always wise to play it safe?

On the other hand, DC might be taking that desperate risk by putting Batman and Superman in the same film. A lot is at stake for both fandoms in this case, and it is indeed a jeopardous move to mix the two with the way the universes have been set up. Others may argue that DC is still cautiously testing the waters to see what will make them the most money without appearing to copy the success of their rivals.

In my opinion, I do believe DC is over-using their favorites. I love Batman, but I feel like it's too soon to see him again on the big screen, especially playing second-fiddle in another hero's movie. But if you think about it, can anyone really blame DC for being hesitant about taking risks? As much as it pains me to do this, I am going to bring up Green Lantern as evidence. One of the biggest flops of 2011, Green Lantern was DC's attempt to break away from Nolan's formula and try something new. What audience's got was an unlikable hero dressed in a poorly thought out CGI suit. After receiving devastating blows from critics, the hopes of a Justice League movie were dashed until the results of the latest Superman reboot were finalized. DC didn't want a repeat of Green Lantern (nor did anyone else), so they stuck with what was comfortable and what they knew would sell tickets.

Bringing Gotham's brooding vigilante to Metropolis seems like another example of how DC is bringing back what is familiar and popular with audience to ensure a box office success. However, DC is also giving their paying customers and loyal fans exactly what they want? Yes, their formula is something we've all gotten used to, but it's also something that many people have grown to love and enjoy. And some fans have waited for years to see a World's Finest adventure come to life. Snyder, whom I believe tries his best and is very passionate about these types of projects (even though not all of them turn out for the best), is just as excited about the prospects of his next Superman film as many of his viewers are. In a way, it seems that a lot of people are thankful for their methods of safety.

We've got a while before this film comes out, but I can predict right now that I will be one of many fans to hand over my money for an early preview of the next Man of Steel film. Even though I still believe it's too early for Superman and Batman to be crossing paths at this point, I won't lie and say that it is a factor that will keep me away from the theater. I know I will see it because it included characters I love and filmmakers I respect.

As to the question of whether or not we are prepared for the World's Finest? Call me in 2015 and I will let you know.

"Turbo" Review

It happened! It finally happened, guys! SPOILERS: Dreamworks finally made a movie without a ridiculous dance-party ending!

Film Summary: Theo dreams of becoming a famous racer. The only problem: he's a snail. But after a freak accident gives him super-snail powers that allow him to rival the speed of a Formula 1 car, he and his friends set out to take on the Indy 500.

I recently moved to a small town in Indiana for a job opportunity. Unlike my former, tourist trap of a home, there is only one movie theater in the area. And this one movie theater has only one screen.

Please take this moment to pick up your jaw off the floor.

Yes, it's hard for privileged audiences like myself to think of a movie theater with one screen that is only in business on weekends. But in a way, I found this to be a blessing in disguise. Not only was the ticket price a mere four dollars (go ahead and pick up your jaw again), but it also gave me the opportunity to see a movie I probably would not have picked out from the array of blockbusters that are out now. The Wolverine and The Conjuring would have been the highest contenders for my money and reviewing purposes. Yet, the only option I had to satisfy my cinematic craving was a movie about a little snail who wanted to be a racer.

Like I said, Turbo would not have been my first pick to spend my money on. The concept of a creature that is famous for its slow speed living in the fast lane is quite clever, the trailer failed to really peek my interest enough, so I was quick to write it off as a "wait until you can rent it" flick. Yet, after sitting down and watching it in that small theater packed with kids and adults alike, I was reminded that you should never judge a movie by its trailer.

From the very beginning of the film, the creators manage to hook the audience into the big world of Theo, or Turbo as he likes to call himself. We are intrigued by his unusual interests, invested by his passion and determination, and heartbroken by the obstacles he has to face. He's a character with heart and a familiar drive that we are able to personally recognize, but that doesn't mean he is perfect. Then again, who is? He can be cocky at times, which tends to be the main problem with almost every role Ryan Reynolds is given, but thankfully not to the point where he comes off as unlikable. He also has a habit of putting himself and his needs before that of his rule-abiding brother (voiced by Paul Giamatti). They're relationship from the very beginning is the clichéd "I love you, but I need to follow my dream" vs. "I'm saying you can't do what you want to because I don't want you to get hurt" dilemma. The writers managed to play it off in a very refreshing way, however. Yes, the two brothers share different opinions on a snail racing, but you can see through the way they interact with each other that both sides never reach an extreme point that many movies tend to resort to. The pacing of their growing understanding for one another is timed out very well, as is the pacing for everything else in the movie. The snails siblings are also given two human guardians about halfway through the film that parallel each other and help their struggles become a little more relatable.

While I can’t say the animation was anything groundbreaking, I do believe Turbo’s strength can be found in its characters and story. The underdog principle holds strong as I found myself really caring about the characters’ goals and even cheering when they find success. The writers even managed to provide solid recurring jokes that never failed to produce a laugh.

Turbo ended up being quite a refreshing Hollywood gem; a movie you believed would be just another mediocre flop that turned out to be incredibly entertaining. While it does fall to many clichés found in beloved underdog tales, it still remains a thrilling ride that will make you laugh and keep you on the edge of your seat.

And did I mention there wasn’t an out-of-place dance party at the end of the movie???

FINAL VERDICT: It’s worth the ticket price! Treat yourself to a family night at the movies.

SEEING RED: "Movie 43" Review

A group of ridiculously famous and talented actors get together to make a raunchy and over-the-top sketch comedy film. The result: a very bad movie.

Film Summary: Several celebrities in various R-rated comedy sketches. That's all you need to know.

I have never been a huge fan of vulgar comedies. But there have been gems in the past where I have been able to look past the outlandish cursing and sexual references and enjoy the movie because of their interesting characters and well-developed stories. Movie 43 has many characters and stories, but none of them worth the title of "interesting" or "well-developed". Yes, the movie is unlike others as it is played out through a series of sketches while a "plot" about a group of immature boys who are trying to find this infamous film unfolds, but the only thing that vaguely tries to capture the audiences attention is a slur of extreme shock-value.

While trying to think of ways this film could have been pulled off, I came across the idea that maybe these sketches would have been better off on their own than clustered together in a mess of a movie. CollegeHumor and Funny or Die have had overwhelming viral success doing exactly what this movie tried to do. Videos such as Will Ferrell's "The Landlord" have grown to be just as well-received and loved as several popular movies. And with the continuous uprising of YouTube and the creative minds that upload to the site daily, viewers are being drawn closer into this quick and easy form of entertainment. Why drive all the way to the theater and pay ten bucks to see a movie when there are several sites online that you can access from your own home that can satisfy an audience with the shortest of attention spans?

Now the question stands: Could Movie 43 be cinema's desperate attempt to compete with or overshadow their internet rivals?

This isn't Hollywood's first attempt at a film such as Movie 43. 1977's Kentucky Fried Movie continues to be loved by movie-goers (and it was popular enough to earn a spot on VH1's "I Love the 70's), and it shares primarily the same formula as Movie 43; dark and in-your-face sketches thrown together in movie form. What made Kentucky Fried Movie so special though was that it was the first of its kind. The gang of Saturday Night Live, which was running around its second season, and the boys of Monty Python were really the only heavy hitters in sketch comedy the popular entertainment world had at the time. Nowadays, there are countless shows and YouTube channels that offer the very same thing, and are many times funnier than what gets thrown into the spotlight. Perhaps, if released separately on the web, the contents of Movie 43 wouldn't have felt like an overkill of cursing and nudity.

Movie 43 fails to do little more than stir up a few cheap laughs (I will congratulate them for pulling off a successful Batman/Robin joke) and make audience cringe from an overdose of shock-value. Perhaps in a different light, the sketches could be considered quite funny. But, thrown together like they were, the comedy falls short. Viewers are left with a sour taste in their mouths as they try to decide whether what they have watched was actually funny or just too vulgar to be believed.


FINAL VERDICT: Skip it and rent something else

SEEING RED: "Dark Skies" Review

Nothing brings a family together like an alien abduction.

Film Summary: The Barrett family is going through a tough time. The father has been laid off and can't find a job, the eldest son is experimenting with drugs, and the mother struggles with maintaining some sort of financial stability. And, to top it all off, aliens have began to torment them and make their lives a living Hell.

It was nice to see Blumhouse Productions, the company behind such works as the Paranormal Activity series and both Insidious films, take a break from something that is solely meant to make the audience jump out of their seats into something more suspenseful and thrilling. True, there are some scares hidden within Dark Skies, but its focus doesn't revolve on the horror/gore aspect that they are so used to making. And for the most part, the filmmakers succeeded in making a fairly decent thriller with a nice twist ending that gives a fresh take on the idea of . It might not be the best thriller out there now, but the way the movie is formulated makes me wonder what went wrong with the company's next thriller, The Purge.

The difficult task many horror/thriller films face is the challenge of successfully developing characters that the audience will care about and feel sympathy towards when something horrific happens to them. Dark Skies had a whole family to achieve this level of apathy for. While it did take a bit of time, by the end of the movie, I truly cared about what was happening to the Barrett family. The same can be said for the pacing of the film; it was slow to start, but picked up quickly and made the audience invested in the actions on screen.

I don't really have anything bad to say about Dark Skies (other than I don't know why characters never thought to turn on a light whenever they walked through their house at night). It was a decent flick, and fun to watch with a group of friends for a good thrill. If your looking to be scared out of your pants, however....try to find something else.


RENT OR SKIP: Rent

NEW SERIES!

About to start a new review series called "Seeing Red"! This will cover what to rent and not rent at your local RedBox!

First Subject: Dark Skies

NEWS UPDATE!

Hey loyal followers!

Thanks for all the support for OPH! Just wanted to let you know there probably won't be any reviews this week. The admin is moving to Indiana, and won't have a chance to get a fast review in for Pacific Rim/Grown Ups 2. I will have a belated World War Z review up as soon as possibly, so be on the lookout for that!

I'm also considering starting a new section of the blog called "Seeing Red". These review will focus on new DVD releases that you can find at your nearest RedBox.

Also, if you haven't already, keep up with OPH on our other social network sites!
Facebook/Tumblr

OVER-PRICE HONESTY IS NOW ON FACEBOOK!

Go like the page for more updates!

"Despicable Me 2" Review

I saw Despicable Me 2 this afternoon, and came out of it certain of 2 things...
1. I want a little yellow minion.
2. Dreamworks does not know how to end a movie without a big dance party.

Film Summary: Master thief and villain Gru (Steve Carrell) has given up a life of crime to become a full-time dad to his three adopted daughters. But when the Anti Villain League calls on him to help catch a new global threat, he and his new partner, Lucy Wilde (Kristen Wiig), are on a mission to become save the world and become heroes.

Despicable Me 2 falls under the same category as its current animated competition, Monsters University. The first movie was a hit with audiences and did well at the box office, and while a second would of course draw in a huge crowd, it wasn't a necessity as far as plot or relevance. However, this doesn't mean the second chapter in Gru's road to becoming a good guy wasn't any good. On the contrary, I feel that Despicable Me 2 was a very good movie for sequel standards. It was just as funny and entertaining as the first and succeeded in introducing us to new and hilarious characters.

One thing that is so clear after watching Despicable Me 2 is that Dreamworks paid close attention to what worked and what audiences continue to love about its predecessor: minions and Agnes. The adorable yellow henchman played a key role in the movies plot and served a higher purpose than just an excuse for slapstick laughs (which there were still plenty of). Agnes also had a slightly larger part than she did in the first installment. Her cuteness remained, but sometimes she also served as the sweet voice of reason for Gru.

What about the other daughters, you ask? Well...they were in the movie. Miranda Cosgrove's Margo had a short subplot about being in love with the antagonist's son that was quickly demolished almost as quickly as it began, and Edith (voiced by Dana Gaier) was...there. Her character dressed as and pretended to be a ninja for most of the film, and that's about all we here from her. If I had to complain about one thing about Despicable Me 2, it would have to be the role of the daughters. Such a prevalent part of the first film to be diminished into mere supporting characters is greatly disappointing.

I can't say anything about the 3D aspect of the film (I tend to stick with the traditional 2D to save myself from a headache), but other than the little importance Gru's daughters had towards the plot, I really don't have much to complain about the movie. I laughed a lot, I sympathized with many of the characters, and most importantly, I had a good time at the movies. Despicable Me 2 definitely serves its purpose in being a solid, fun family film.


FINAL VERDICT: If you need some good laughs and an overload of cuteness, this is the movie to see. I recommend a matinee, and if you're not familiar with the first installment, I'd say pull a double feature once this one comes out on DVD.

OVER-PRICED HONESTY IS NOW ON TUMBLR!

GO CHECK IT OUT!

"The Lone Ranger" Review

I will begin by saying I didn't have much expectations for The Lone Ranger to begin with. But my father is a big western fan, and he had been waiting for this movie to come out all summer. And for a man who wants to go see an early screening at 10:30 at night when his bedtime is usually 9, I thought that maybe there would be something special about this movie that I wasn't getting from the trailer.

There wasn't.

Film Summary: After being raised from the dead by an Indian named Tonto, John Reid dons a mask and becomes a western vigilante seeking to bring his brother's killer to justice.

The film started off on quite a confusing note by opening at a carnival in San Francisco circa 1933. Here, a small boy dressed as the iconic hero walks into a exhibition of the old west and is greeted by an old mannequin version of Tonto that comes to life before his eyes? At least, I think that's what happened. I haven't quite figured it out, because the movie never bothered to explain what Old Tonto was doing in a glass exhibition case in 1933, how he got there, or why the writers felt like this was remotely necessary. The Old Tonto/Little Boy subplot served as the movie's excuse for the Lone Ranger's (or more so, Tonto's) story to be told. Was this needed? Absolutely not. People had already paid good money to see these characters on the big screen. They didn't need any excuses from the characters as to why they wanted this story told. The movie could have very well have started in on the main plot first thing, but instead, we are "treated" to quite a few annoying segments of a crazy, aging Indian telling a young on-looker about his adventures.

While the carnival subplot was unnecessary and confusing, this was in no way the main problem the movie faced. For a movie named The Lone Ranger, the masked Texas Ranger seemed more of a secondary character to his "Indian" sidekick. If anything, the movie should have been called Tonto in order to put the right focus of the movie in place. Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger comes off as an incompetent man of the law  instead of the daring hero this movie needed to thrive. Part of this I don't believe is Hammer's fault, but that of the writers. They knew who people were coming to see (aka not Armie Hammer), and they knew who to make the true main character in order for the movie to do decently at the box office.

Once again, audiences are given a Johnny Depp showcase. Don't get me wrong; I love Johnny Depp. He is a great character actor, and has many amazing, memorable roles under his belt. But his last few movies only serve to test just how far he can stretch his style of diversity and just how much makeup he can put on his face (Alice in Wonderland, Dark Shadows). It should have been clear from these past flops that relying on Depp's weirdness does not a good movie make. And why Depp was cast to play a stereotypical Indian of the old west when there were several others within the film who had the looks and lineage to fill the role better baffles me. Depp looked very out of place compared to his fellow tribe members, but his heritage wasn't the reason he was given the part, was it?

To the movie's credit, The Lone Ranger did provide a few very intriguing action sequences (most of which took places on trains), but not even these scenes mixed in with a score by the great Hans Zimmer could save the film.This could have been a great opportunity for Hammer to sky-rocket his career and to become a big name in Hollywood. That is the only thing I was expecting out of this movie. Hammer is a wonderful actor. He proved that by playing both Winklevoss twins in The Social Network, but took a step back in his career by signing on for Mirror Mirror. And with the camera and director giving all of their love to Depp throughout the movie, Hammer is going to have to really push himself with his next project in order to prove he is the great actor I believe his is fully capable of being.


FINAL VERDICT: If you must see it, wait until it's available for rental.

UPDATE

I plan on reviewing World War Z soon, but I need to get my rant out about The Lone Ranger first before I explode...

(Belated) "Monsters University" Review

Ok...I'm just going to come out with it...MONSTERS INC. IS MY FAVORITE PIXAR MOVIE. Not Toy Story, not Up, but Monsters Inc. holds the number one spot in my heart.

There, I said it. Please refrain from sending any hate mail my way.

Yes, Monsters Inc. trumps all other Pixar movies in my opinion. And when I heard the beloved movie company was adding on to the franchise, I was both excited and terrified to see the final product. Fortunately, Pixar continues their trend of producing solid and entertaining family films

Film Summary: Monsters University gives audiences the origin story of everyone's favorite scare team, Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan. The dynamic duo did not start out as friends, however. Beginning as rivals in the prestigious scare program, they must learn to work together to insure their place at MU.

Like always, Pixar delivers top of the line animation, and their designs never cease to amaze me. It's hard to think of a university setting filled with hundreds of uniquely built monsters, but they managed to pull it off. I was especially impressed with the looks of the scare school's dean, Mrs. Hardscrabble; a terrifying, yet sophisticated collaboration between a dragon and a centipede. And yes, I will admit, I melted at the sight of baby Mike Wazowski!

I was also shocked by the amount of vocal talent involved with the project. Unless it is heavily advertized through trailers or posters, I have a hard time picking out who is voicing who in animated features. This was not the case with Monsters University. Not only were several of the original cast members from Monsters Inc. back for round two, but along beside them came Helen Mirren, John Krasinski, Aubrey Plaza, and Nathan Fillion!

I believe Pixar made a smart move by not making an exact sequel to Monsters Inc. The first movie had a perfect ending, and I think it was a wise choice to make a prequel instead of a continuation from the first. I'm not saying this movie was completely necessary, but you can tell that the material and characters were handled with care and wasn't just a way for the company to make an easy buck. That's one thing I love about Pixar; everything they shell out (with the exception of Cars 2 perhaps) are passion projects. They won't release anything they don't think is up to par with their high standards of quality. Monsters University is a great example of this commendable principle.

There's not a whole lot of great conflict throughout the film because we already know where Mike and Sully will eventually end up. The main action comes from the duo having to team up with a fraternity of "loser" monsters to compete and win a scare tournament. Although, it could be worse. The tournament could have just been a way for the Mike and Sully to gain popularity or to reach the top of their class or the movie could have simply revolved around how the two become friends. Thankfully, the movie is so much more than that. A major part of the film deals with what happens when you can't have that one thing you've been dreaming of your whole life; an incredibly adult concept for a kid flick. And when the main characters do something incredibly illegal, there are actual consequences! They are not scolded and then forgiven five seconds later because of their heroic actions. This aspect was so refreshing to see from not only a family film, but from an all-around, general movie perspective.

Monsters University might not have been my first choice for a Pixar follow-up (I am still waiting for The Incredibles 2), but it did turn out to be a pleasant surprise.

FINAL VERDICT: It's worth seeing, but catch the matinee.

The problem with my job...

...is I have little time to actually see movies. But I was able to see Monsters University Tuesday, and World War Z is tomorrow, so I will have fresh(ish) reviews coming to you soon!

"Man of Steel" Review

Let me begin by congratulating director Zach Snyder on two things:
1. Creating a movie without excessive slow motion.
2. Making Superman interesting.

Film Summary: It's a Superman origin movie. That's all you need to know.

I have always been a big superhero fan, and that love for fictional symbols of justice and hope came from movies. I bought my first comic book after seeing it's leading character on the big screen for the first time (even though it was an Electra comic during a time when I actually liked the Daredevil movie). So, I tend to hold the superhero genre on a pedestal and judge it on a totally different level than others. In my opinion, a superhero movie must include and pull off specific elements in order to be considered at least "good" in my book. For example, the hero(s) must be complex; not just the nice guy next door who is always willing to fight for good, but someone who has to struggle with morality and other issue in order to find out what he is truly fighting for. The villain must also be complex, if not more than the hero is. And as for the leading lady; the movie must recognize that the female in a superhero movie doesn't always have to play the damsel in distress. There has got to be action, there has got to be destruction, but most importantly, the movie has got to make the audience believe their beloved comic panels have come to life before their eyes.

It makes me happy to say that Man of Steel has done just that.

Before viewing Snyder's latest cinematic take on a beloved comic book series, I will admit that I was not too excited to see it. For one, Superman has never been a favorite of mine. I personally never saw him as much of a complex and memorable character, rather a perfectly boring hero with only one weakness to slow him down. My mind was much more interested in the brooding likes of Batman and Spider-Man. I also wasn't too thrilled with who was seated in the director's chair. While I will admit to being a fan of (most of) his take on Alan Moore's opus, Watchmen (I'm sorry, Mr. Moore, but I did), the last thing I wanted this movie to be was an over-stylized, slow-motion riddled blockbuster-hopeful such as 300 or Sucker Punch. Honestly, what convinced me into going out to the theater on Monday to see it was knowing who produced it (Christopher Nolan) and who wrote the score (Hans Zimmer).

To my relief, Man of Steel was neither boring nor overwrought with slow motion. While the script was nothing Oscar-worthy (did Lois Lane really ask where to "tinkle"???), I appreciated the films unique mix of cinematography styles; switching between that of what you'd expect from a superhero blockbuster and a personal, almost shaky-cam feel that pulled the Kryptonian's story into a more realistic light. And while they could have treated this as just your normal origin story, the movie luckily failed to follow the usual chronological timeline and gracefully covered the events of Clark Kent's past on Earth through a series of non-distracting flashbacks. The acting from the majority of the cast is something to be commended, as well. Henry Cavill brought a new depth to a character I had once found incredibly one-dimensional. Michael Shannon also gave a standout performance as General Zod. He was able to turn a role that could have been so easily-overdone into one that made the audience both empathize with him and fear him at the same time.

Upon viewing Man of Steel, I cannot help but compare it to another recent reboot of a popular superhero franchise; Sony Pictures' The Amazing Spider-Man. Both films had the difficult task of regaining a mass audience after their predecessors had fallen under deservedly harsh criticisms (Superman Returns, Spider-Man 3), and they both succeeded in restoring hope to fanboys and fangirls everywhere. But there are two areas in which both vary in superiority. One of these areas is the way the origin story is handled. Unlike The Amazing Spider-Man, Man of Steel was aware that a large portion of its audience was already familiar with the back story of how and why Superman came to Earth, and it doesn't dwell so much on the past or how he came to be what he is today. Even though it was obligated to cover it all, Snyder's film did it in a way that was refreshing and new for longtime fans and informative for newcomers. However, while Spider-Man was almost all back-story and no action, Man of Steel quickly became the opposite towards the end of the film. By the time the final battle between Superman and Zod began, I was so mentally exhausted and ready for the movie to be over, I didn't care who won the battle! I just wanted someone to die so I could go home.

Superman will not be topping my list of favorite superheroes any time soon, but Christopher Nolan's experience and influence did Snyder well on his venture to reboot the franchise. It was risky trying pull off the same, realistic tone as the producer once found success in with the Dark Knight trilogy, but overall, the team pulled it off quite nicely. From the films clever little details (the Smallville water tower, the LexCorp fuel tank) to the overwhelming sense of heroism that explodes from each piece of Zimmer's score, Man of Steel proved to be quite the pleasant surprise.


FINAL VERDICT: It's worth seeing on the big screen

"Now You See Me" Review

It isn't quite a rare occasion for a film's plot twist to surprise me. There have been several occasions where a movie will go somewhere I never thought it would go. Most of the time, however, I can see it coming from a mile away.

In the case of Now You See Me...I never saw it coming. Nor did I expect a true, unexpected twist to come from a movie like this. Yet, even though I was left a bit blindsided by the film's ending, I have a hard time finding it believable.

Film Summary: A group of magicians, known as the Four Horsemen, are brought together by an anonymous force to become an over-night sensation. The reason for their popularity? Their final trick includes miraculously robbing a bank and giving the stolen money to their audience members. As the FBI tries to investigate the actions of the criminal vigilantes, they struggle to determine what is really magic and what is simply illusion.

There isn't a whole lot I have to say about Now You See Me, unfortunately. It proved to be a well-developed and entertaining mystery. And it was in no way a bad film. The only qualms I had with it was the twist...so prepare for some SPOILERS.

I will not give away who is the true leader of the Four Horsemen, because I do not want anyone who hasn't seen the movie to be stripped of the opportunity to have their mind blown. Looking back towards the rising actions of the film, it is obvious to point out clues that lead to who is behind the robberies, but when that person steps forward to reveal himself, my jaw hit the floor. However, as much of a shock as it was, it soon became clear that the mystery magician's plan was way to complicated for anyone's good. Their plan almost reminds me of the problems critics had with the plot-holes surrounding The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. Yes, the characters had thought up brilliant, complicated, and well thought-out ways of getting what they want. Yet, when it came to the reality of the length of time it must have taken and the things that certain character had to put themselves through in order to accomplish that task, it leaves audience members unwilling to believe what had just unfolded before them. What if a certain piece in the game had chosen a different path, or if some crucial element failed to deliver? With such a time-consuming, elaborate plan, the shock of the movie's twist was swallowed by a sea of questions.

It was quite an intriguing ride that the movie delivered as the viewers joined the fictional detectives to figure out what was behind the Horsemen's tricks, and the acting/script/etc. were far from horrible. That being said, I can't say that it was a spectacular film. Besides the surprising (yet unbelievable) twist, many elements of the movie failed to stand out. In my opinion, Now You See Me will soon join the ranks of the forgettable gems; movies that are very enjoyable and fun to watch, but fall quickly into obscurity. I wouldn't be to surprised to find it premiering on cable television within the next couple of years.


FINAL VERDICT: It's worse seeing, but either wait to rent it or catch a matinee

"The Purge" Review

If I had to choose only one word to describe director James DeMonaco's second directorial project, it would have to be....meh. Yes, I know that might not be an actual word, but it was the first thing that came to my mind after viewing his film on Tuesday. I believe Anthony Misiano of Reel Butter put it best when he said that The Purge is "the most mediocre movie I've seen in a long, long time."

 Film Summary: In the near future, America's society is blossoming; unemployment is at 1%, crime is at an all-time low, and everyone seems very satisfied with their lives. All of this happiness is the result of an annual event known as "the Purge". For a 12 hour period, all crime is legal, and even encouraged. During one such night, a well-to-do family is terrorized by a group of Purge participants after the youngest son gives shelter to their chosen target.

I will admit that I was incredibly excited for this movie! The trailer got me super pumped, and the concept of a world where all crime is legal was quite intriguing. To my dismay, the film failed to live up to my expectations. There was only about two occasions where I felt truly scared, and the "twist" towards the end was really nothing too shocking. The script was less than impressive and most of the characters were so unlikeable, I wasn't too upset when something unfortunate happened to them. It did help, however, that the acting ranged from passable to pretty impressive. Leading the pack is Lena Headey (300, Game of Thrones). Her terrified, compassionate, yet strong and courageous mother-figure allowed me to spare some sympathy for the family's plight.

As for the ending, there was much left to be desired. In fact, there were several factors of the film that left me feeling rather unsatisfied. Many of these stemmed from the universe of the movie itself. Set in the United States during the spring of 2022, it is implied that America's financial and social structure had become so hopeless, that a complete makeover of the country's government was a crucial necessity. Their leaders, simply known as the New Founding Fathers, initiated the annual Purge in order for citizens to "release the beast" (a phrase completely overused throughout the film) and make it possible for society to control their urge for illegal activity and help make their homeland become better place. A controversy circulating throughout this world is that the Purge was not simply a way for people to satisfy their basic, violent urges, but to also eliminate the weak and lower class; thus causing America to thrive.

Who are these New Founding Fathers? We don't know. How was the idea of an annual night of uncontrollable violence and crime able to be OK-ed by the American people? No one is really sure. The movie leaves a great deal, perhaps a little too much, to be imagined. The only reason I would encourage a sequel to The Purge would be if it took the opportunity to expand on the universe of the film, and explain how the New Founding Fathers and the Purge came into existence.

After talking with several other friends of mine who came out of this just as disappointed as I was, all of them said the same thing to me: "I was expecting it to be like The Strangers, but it wasn't at all!" It baffles me that so many were comparing The Purge to Bryan Bertino's far superior, 2008 horror movie, but I could see where they were coming from. Both films primarily play on the fear of home invasions and malicious unknowns with a lust for blood. Yet, there are some key differences between the two that make one much more gratifying to watch than the other.

For one, the situations found in The Strangers are much more relatable and disturbing than that of The Purge. It's hard to envision our own society as it is today that allowing such an event as the Purge to be legal, while the tragedy of Bertino's film could very well be a reality. Also, the reasons behind the antagonists' actions prove which villains are the terrifying. The Ken Doll-masked group of Purgers are intensely scary; taunting their victims by playing out grotesque scenes for the house's security cameras, banging on its metal-plated windows and doors, and eventually proving that they have to power to break into something that was rumored to be impenetrable and viciously take what they want. But in their world, it is their right. Their actions, however horrible they might be, fail to be seen as shocking in that society, and even to the movie's audience at times. The murders of The Strangers are the complete opposite. They have no right, nor do they have any true motivation behind their actions besides the main characters happened to be at home. A large group of wealthy, over-the-top killers pale in comparison to silence and mystery behind the three strangers.

To the film's credit, it wasn't a bad film. It was able to capture my attention for the entire running time, and it did give way to a very interesting and horrifying story idea. But, perhaps with a different screenwriter and a more satisfying ending with actual consequences, The Purge might have been able to live up to the hype it had gained before its release.


FINAL VERDICT: Wait until it shows up at RedBox

INTRODUCING "OVER-PRICED HONESTY" MOVIE REVIEWS!

Everyone enjoys going to the movies! But with ticket prices the way that they, it almost isn't worth dropping 10 bucks on a movie that really isn't worth seeing.

That's where Over-Priced Honesty comes into play! Our goal is to save you and your wallet from wasting your hard-earned cash on a Hollywood dud for a movie you might actually enjoy!

This movie-review blog will primarily focus on new releases in the theaters, but will also cover recent DVD and rental releases. Opinions and requests for movies to review are welcomed and appreciated!