"Pure Entertainment" Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Let me start off by saying that The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 was 100% refreshing for me. No, the story isn't overly original (especially since it's a remake), the New York subway system has been explored before and there are a few lapses in dialogue while F-words fly like pigeons. No, what makes Pelham 1 2 3 a great movie is how the entire movie is presented and put together; it's in the writing, acting and directing. Movies are supposed to be better than the sum of their parts and this movie certainly is. At least for this reviewer, Pelham 1 2 3 was highly enjoyable and a departure from the usual summer fare.

The story is simple enough. John Travolta's character, Ryder, hijacks a train with the help of his cohorts in an attempt to get $10 Million from the city of New York. There are hostages on board and Ryder will kill one hostage for every 1 minute the city goes over their hour of allotted time. Denzel Washington's character, Walter Garber, happens to be the unlucky guy that's on the end of the line when Ryder calls. They work together in order to try to get the money in there as soon as possible and save the lives of as many hostages as possible. Ryder has no remorse but it's obvious that he would rather not have to kill these people but knows what must be done. He has a true hatred for the city of New York and the mayor especially, played perfectly by James Gandolfini. To go any further into the plot would be a disservice to the people who go to see this movie. It is better to be completely surprised by the events that take place.

The acting in this movie is really fantastic. John Travolota goes back to his villainous side and drops the most F-bombs throughout the movie. He is an ex-con who only cares about getting revenge on New York and earning some compensation for his troubles. Denzel Washington is amazing as usual and is able to tone it down quite a bit in order to play this more reserved character. He has some shadiness to his past as well but all is explained and he is still your "hero" in a sense. John Turturro makes a surprise appearance (at least for me) as a negotiator and he is in great form, here. He talks fast and moves faster while trying to explain how to negotiate with Washington's character. These actors bring something special to a movie that is very simple but powerful.

The directing has been getting a lot of flack from critics. They say that the pacing is frantic and the editing is overbearing but I didn't see anything like that. You have to prepared when you go see a Tony Scott movie because the editing will be interesting and the pacing will be exciting (is it not called a thriller?). Scott is able to get the performances he needs from his characters and finds a way to make New York city a villain and something worth fighting for all at the same time. Scott has really been hitting his stride lately with (mostly) underrated movies such as Man on Fire, Domino and Deja Vu. He has calmed down the acid-trip vibe of those movies and has instead turned in a more reserved movie that still has his signature style but more heart this time around. He takes his time when it is right but makes sure that there is always moving going on whether it be vehicles or the camera itself. It makes for an exhilarating experience.

Another part of this movie that is great is the music. Yes, it is simple and not very noticeable to some but by starting off with 99 Problems by Jay-Z in order to give New York and the main character, Ryder, an identity was a great choice and the composer has created a single song that plays whenever Ryder is on screen or talking to Garber. It starts off as a sweet sounding melody and then ends with a sadder ending. It provides feeling in situations where you can read into the mind of the characters and try to see what they are thinking. The music really does compliment the movie and I urge everyone to listen for the song I am talking about.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 may be a remake but it has its own identity and his wholly original. The story is solid, the acting is perfect and the directing couldn't be better. Many people have small gripes with the film and they allow those gripes to ruin the movie for them. I would give this advice to people who see this movie: just enjoy it. This blog is all about the entertainment value and Pelham 1 2 3 is bursting at the seams with thrills and tension. Summer entertainment doesn't get much better than this.

Entertainment Value: Very High

Why VH: This movie is truly entertaining but is also very smart in its story and approach. John Travolta and Denzel Washington battle it out as Tony Scott gives the audience something to look at. I really enjoyed this movie and I highly recommend it.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion and mostly rely on entertainment factor rather than the critical acclaim, although they sometimes coincide. The rating system is as follows: Very Low, Low, Take-It-Or-Leave-It, High, Very High, and So Good It Transcends My Ratings.)

"Better Late Than Never" Review: The International

The International is a bit of a confusing movie. The story is hard to follow at times and for being called a "thriller", the thrills come a little too late into the movie. Clive Owen plays an Interpol agent who's working with Naomi Watt's character, who is an Assistant District Attorney, as they try to take down a bank that has started dealing with weapons. The movie starts off with an accident/murder (to be determined) and ends with one as well. This isn't meant to be a spoiler but rather to show you the framing that was done here. This is the story in a nutshell but there are plenty more twists and turns for the viewer to try to pay attention to.

The writing in The International is well done. Eric Singer has been able to take a story that is a bit unbelievable in parts but given it a grounding in reality that provides some validity. The characters are interesting and the locations the characters go to are beautiful. The dialogue is very well done and no character is over or under written. The overall story is very cohesive and makes complete sense if one is willing to go along for the ride.

The acting in the film is superb. Clive Owen is excellent as always and Naomi Watts fills her position without having anything truly incredible to say or do. The directing is well done to a point. Scenes don't go overly long and he gets great performances from his actors. The only problem is the pacing and the structure. The movie starts off very slow and begs you to pay attention until it starts taking off. Owen is enough to keep your attention for some of the time but when he is off screen, it is truly difficult to pay attention. The leaders of the IBBC (the bank in the film) are formulaic and boring. The only other actor in the film that really shines is Armin Mueller-Stahl, who has been in some great roles lately in movies such as Eastern Promises and Angels & Demons. It takes almost an hour for any action/thrill to appear in the movie and it may have taken too long to happen, although once it gets going, it really doesn't stop for the remainder of the film.

The International is, overall, a good movie but some of the beginning could have possibly been trimmed in order to have the action come up sooner. The story is setup very well and is interesting but it takes too long to develop. Once the movie gets going though in the second half, it is difficult to take your eyes off of. Make sure that if you are going to watch this movie, you are prepared to pay attention otherwise, you will be lost and possibly unable to enjoy the climactic ending scenes.

Verdict: Recommended
Why R: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts and Armin Mueller-Stahl give great performances and the story is interesting if you are willing to let it develop. My only qualm is the pacing of the film but I was able to overcome it and enjoy the movie quite a bit.

"Pure Entertainment" Review: Up

A movie about an old man who takes a house, attached to balloons, on an adventure to South America with a boy scout, of sorts, in order to fulfill a promise to his lost love is essentially what Up is all about but there is so much more under the surface. It may sound strange and, in many ways, it is strange but this story is the most real example of storytelling that the medium of animated films has been able to muster. I won't go into the story any deeper because going into this movie with any expectations could tarnish the adventure. It truly is a movie that you have to see for yourself.

To start, the animation in Up is beautiful. Pixar is really on the cutting edge of what can be done in the medium. There are bright colors when necessary but also darker hues when they are needed for sadder story elements. The character movements and fabric movements are unbelievable and really help to make Up's characters seem more true to life. The places that Carl (a great, Ed Asner) and Russell (Jordan Nagai) go to are memorable and exciting. They meet up with a mystical bird that is named Kevin, by Russell, and eventually a dog named Dug. Each character is rendered beautifully and has a certain personality portrayed in their individual looks and mannerisms. Needless to say, Pixar has outdone themselves.

The characters themselves are highly entertaining. You truly care about Carl and understand why he has become a grumpy old man. Russell brings a child's innocence into the movie and also provides Carl with someone to mentor as well as learn from. Kevin, the bird, is amazingly entertaining and hilarious in her own right (that's right, Kevin is a her). Dug is a scene stealer whenever he shows up. Charles Muntz, played by Christopher Plummer, is also a very interesting character that acts as the hero and the villain within the 96 minutes of fun that Up provides.

One other aspect of this film that must be mentioned is the music. There are sweeping songs of exploration and suspense. There are bouncy songs for the happier moments in the film. Each scene is given a unique treatment and allows for the audience to be pulled in.

In this reviewer's opinion, Up is a masterpiece but it sneaks up on you. From the opening scenes that are sure to bring tears out of some to the ending scenes that show character growth and new friendships forged, the audience gets to take a ride with some of the most interesting characters that Pixar has created. Kids will watch this movie and enjoy the adventure and excitement that goes on in front of them but adults will get something much more. This movie isn't an animated movie with a story thrown in. This is a story-driven movie that just happens to be animated. Pardon the pun, but if Pixar keeps traveling down the road they currently are, then, the sky's the limit.

Entertainment Value: So Good It Transcends My Ratings
Why SGITMR: Up has interesting characters, an exciting/heartfelt story and an adventure that kids and adults can enjoy together. Pixar has crafted another masterpiece.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion and mostly rely on entertainment factor rather than the critical acclaim, although they sometimes coincide. The rating system is as follows: Very Low, Low, Take-It-Or-Leave-It, High, Very High, and So Good It Transcends My Ratings.)

"Better Late Than Never" Review: Bedtime Stories

This week, I rented Bedtime Stories because I was surprised by the cast that was involved. I had read some bad reviews about it along with a few reviews that seemed to find good things to say about it. I have grown a little bored of Adam Sandler as of late but with Guy Pearce, Courteney Cox, Russell Brand, Jonathan Pryce and Keri Russell all involved in this movie, I thought to myself, "it might not be that bad." I was right for the most part but this movie is pretty inconsistent and almost wholly geared toward children younger than 6. I don't fit that demographic but I was able to find quite a bit that was entertaining.

The strangest thing about my viewing experience of Bedtime Stories was the fact that I laughed quite a bit. Maybe I needed to laugh or maybe some of it was actually pretty funny. I can safely say that Russell Brand is almost the comic relief in this comedy. Every thing he says is hilarious and he has some truly original mannerisms that make him stand out from the other characters in the movie. Adam Sandler is channeling some Billy Madison in this movie but not to the same degree. He does a good job catering toward children in this one but there is hardly a draw for adults.

The story is an interesting idea. Skeeter, Sandler's character, has to compete with Guy Pearce's character to see who gets to control the new Nottingham hotel. I won't go into too much detail of the story because it is entertaining and better if you know almost nothing going in. I will say that aside from Russell Brand, the funniest part of the movie might be the completely random and sometimes ridiculous Bugsy, the guinea pig. I'm sure everyone has seen him in the trailers but in the movie, he has a more expanded role that I had previously imagined.

The script is written well enough but there isn't much to work with. Each actor tries really hard to bring something to their character and where Sandler, Brand and the children succeed for the most part, Keri Russell fails miserably. I honestly couldn't believe that I was seeing the same actress that played Felicity or really any of the other characters she has played throughout her career. She is a pretty stereotypical character in this one but actually seems to be overacting to an extreme degree to make up for it. I almost felt bad for her during the movie because she was trying to hard. She almost ruined the movie but in the end, she didn't do quite enough for a complete derail.

The biggest problem I had with the movie was the quick ending. The movie took about 45 minutes to set up the conflict, 20 to 25 minutes to show the conflict in action and then about 5 minutes supply and ending with about 5 minutes of filler near the end to provide the "Happily Ever After" finale. It just seemed very rushed and anti-climactic. Other than that, the movie is charming to a degree and will definitely entertain children.

Overall, Bedtime Stories is yet another Adam Sandler payday but the other actors give it something special. The children are lovable and, for the last time, Russell Brand runs away with it. I recommend that anyone with a child see it because they will thoroughly enjoy it but don't expect too much for adults to enjoy.

Verdict: Recommended
Why R: This is one of those movies that needs to be seen in order to find out whether or not you'll like it. It is very random and inconsistent but worth seeing because of Russell Brand and the interesting story.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion. The rating system is as follows: Avoid At All Costs, Not Recommended, Recommended, or Highly Recommended)

"Pure Entertainment" Review: Terminator Salvation

Terminator Salvation is a difficult movie. It is truly hard to say it is a Terminator movie but it is just as hard to say that it isn't. It's easy to say the action scenes are very well-done and impressive, to say the least but it's also easy to say the movie has no heart and most of the actors are simply phoning it in (although it could be and more than likely is the fault of writing). The movie is entertaining as a standalone action film but disappointing as an addition to the Terminator series (less-so than T-3, and I won't even mention that movie from now on). To summarize my feelings on the film in a simple phrase, I would say: McG was in way over his head.

The movie starts off well enough with a simple but effective opening sequence that sets the mood for the dark and dreary story that it about to play out. There are multiple action sequences that stand out throughout the movie, including an extended take of John Connor, played by Christian Bale, and his interaction with a helicopter and half of a terminator. The setting is grey and shadowy which works well considering these people are living in a post-apocalyptic world after Judgement Day. The effects are fantastic, blending actual buildings and creations with special effects to create something seamless and exciting. The effects of this movie have been talked about at great length and praised but those, sadly, are not the only part of this movie.

The acting is disappointing to say the least and the writing is worse. I heard that Jonathan Nolan was involved in this script but from what I have seen, not nearly enough. The dialogue is simple and almost seems placeholder in a way. The story itself is interesting enough but doesn't give the actors much to work with. The script may not be the fault of the director, McG, but the performances that he gets from his actors are his fault. He could have stood to give Moon Bloodgood a few extra takes in order to make sure that he got what he needed. He could have told Christian Bale that yelling or growling wasn't fitting for the particular moment. He could have told the actors who played the leaders of the resistance, including Michael Ironside, that they didn't need to be stereotypical figures. There are exceptions because for the most part Christian Bale holds his own, with a few exceptions; Bryce Dallas Howard is great in her very limited part; Sam Worthington definitely has a good career ahead of him and with directors like Louis Letterier and James Cameron working with him, the sky is the limit; and Anton Yelchin does a good enough job with what he is given but could used more direction to be sure. There are so many great actors that were underused and not so great actors that were overused.

Another problem in this movie is the pacing. It is very inconsistent. You jump from a high-octane action scene to a supposed-to-be tender moment in a flash without much of a transition. It is easy to tell that some scenes were cut because some moments are awkward. Perhaps the DVD version will be better and be a more complete version. The movie might have been serviced better with less of these down-time moments. Then again, it would have been nothing but action with no story to speak of. I'm not sure if that would've been better or not.

The music is good. It helps the movie as much as it can. You have your high-energy songs that compliment the action sequences perfectly and even some slower arrangements that would have worked well if the acting was only better.

I went to see this movie with my girlfriend who had never seen any of the previous Terminator movies and she really enjoyed it. This made me come to a realization. This movie shouldn't be considered a part of the original two movies or even as an extension of the narrative. Terminator Salvation should have been considered its own standalone movie (or franchise) that doesn't necessarily have to follow all of the rules of the previous movies. It should have pulled something similar to Star Trek so that it could be its own series without having to worry about standing up to the originals. I'm not saying that this movie should have been identical to Star Trek or that it could have been Star Trek but maybe it was trying too hard to give the fans all they wanted while trying to tell a new story, that they eventually got lost in it all. This is where I say it again: McG was in way over his head. He couldn't control Christian Bale because its obvious that he does what he wants in the movie even though he would've done better with direction. The parts of the movie that are meant to be touching or sentimental feel forced and out of place. I'm not going to hold the fact that the only projects McG has made are the Charlie's Angels movies and music videos against him because everyone has to start somewhere. I just think that McG could have helped himself out by trying to make a movie similar to Terminator Salvation before actually making it. It feels like a stepping stone rather than a full-on feature. I know there will be more Terminator movies in the future, because originality appears to be fleeting, but hopefully the future ones will be better-made. McG has potential but that doesn't get you anywhere until its fully realized.

I will rate Terminator Salvation as a Take-It-Or-Leave-It affair with an emphasis on Take-It. It may be a Leave-It for fans but people who haven't seen the other movies may actually enjoy it quite a bit. If I would have been able to erase the other Terminator movies from my mind, I would have loved this film as an action movie with just enough story. I can't say that because I can't erase the predecessors. Overall, Terminator Salvation is an entertaining standalone film but as a Terminator movie, it is a letdown

Entertainment Value: Take-It-Or-Leave-It
Why TIOLT: Terminator Salvation has some great action sequences, special effects and music but the acting, storyline and pacing leave a lot to be desired.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion and mostly rely on entertainment factor rather than the critical acclaim, although they sometimes coincide. The rating system is as follows: Very Low, Low, Take-It-Or-Leave-It, High, Very High, and So Good It Transcends My Ratings.)

"Pure Entertainment" Review: Angels & Demons

Controversy!!! Dan Brown!!! The Da Vinci Code!!! All of these things were being yelled when The Da Vinci Code first came out as a book and finally as a movie. It was so controversial for its suggestion that Jesus may have married Mary Magdalene and had a child. It was dismantled for using historical artifacts and locations incorrectly to tell its story and has been debunked by scholars, religion experts and others alike. The movie was scolded for "talking" to much and not having enough action. It was discredited for being unbelievable and far-fetched. Critics said it was too long or that Tom Hanks' hair was unappealing. Awww yes, it's true; a hair style really does make or break a movie in many cases... No... Many people may think that I dislike critics from the way that I mention them on a regular basis and yet I review movies. Why am I not like all of the other critics? Why don't I hate every movie I see or nitpick them to death until they are completely unrecognizable? Why am I able to see these movies with entertainment in mind rather than putting my personal beliefs and, in some cases, personal preferences aside in order to find out whether or not this movie is worth seeing and whether or not I enjoyed it? Is it because I don't get paid to write reviews? Is it because I'm younger and haven't become cranky or elitist? Or, is it because nobody actually reads my reviews and I can basically say whatever I want about anything and it won't really matter (probably, that one sounds right actually). No, it's because I allow movies to take me where they mean to take me. I don't put up barricades for the director or writers. I go along for the ride, enjoy it and wonder what the final destination will be. Isn't this what movies are all about? Aren't they supposed to suspend your disbelief and take you some place you've never been? Enough ranting and onto the review...

In book terms, Angels & Demons is the prequel to The Da Vinci Code but in the film version of A&D, these events take place after those of TDVC (abbreviations are awesome). Tom Hanks is back as Robert Langdon and is once again doing a fantastic job of playing the part. He doesn't show much emotion as is always able to see events from the outside rather than being emotionally invested. For those of you who are unable to watch TDVC based on Hanks' hair alone, rest assured, it is shorter in this version and he looks even more distinguished. In A&D, a secret group called the Illuminati have set an anti-matter bomb underneath Vatican city and it is set to blow up just before midnight. The Pope has just passed away and the Cardinals are meeting to pick his successor. However, four of the preferred candidates or 'Preferiti' have been kidnapped and every Cardinal is voting for himself to stall the election until the kidnapped Cardinals have been returned. I won't go into anymore detail for this story because it really is something you should experience with as little of the facts as possible. Needless to say, A&D is a top-rate thriller story that interweaves action, discovery and the debate between science and religion into one fabric that is almost guaranteed to entertain if you allow it to.

The actors in this film are all fantastic. As I said before, Tom Hanks is back as Robert Langdon while Ewan McGregor is introduced as the Camerlengo, or closest, personal assistant to the Pope. He does a great job here with the part he is given and never seems out of place. Other actors are present are Stellan Skarsgard and Ayelet Zurer who both give great performances as Commander Richter and Vittoria Vetra, respectively. Each character helps to move the story along and keep the audience in a constant state of wonder. You may feel as though you know what's going to happen throughout most of the film but by the end, you will surely be surprised by the outcome.

The Vatican has been created in great detail because Ron Howard and his crew were not allowed to film there. The special effects in the film are perfect in that they are not too extravagant and remain completely believable. The direction this time is more tight and fast paced than The Da Vinci Code and the story moves along quickly with intensity. Howard obviously took criticism to heart and has focused on making sure that there aren't very many lulling moments. The fact that the movie takes place over the course of roughly 8 - 12 hours is remarkable. It allows for the movie to move along quickly without seeming rushed.

Another aspect of A&D that has been criminally overlooked is the music. Hans Zimmer has done something truly great here. He mixes choral arrangements with the pounding instrumentals that he is known for and creates something that feels like a mixture between classical church music that should be played on organs and contemporary music that he has provided for films like The Dark Knight. It builds the tension in every scene and really is a beautiful collection of songs that aid the film.

Angels & Demons has been said to be "not very good but better than The Da Vinci Code." For one, I loved TDVC and thought it was an adventure that made you think about what was going on and attempt to follow along. The movie doesn't ask you to believe everything that happens in it could be true in real life; it merely asks you to come along for the ride and enjoy it as a piece of fiction. A&D is very similar to TDVC in many ways except for the fact that a lot of what is shown is actually pretty accurate. All of the locations used in the book and the film are real places and actually do map out in the way they are portrayed. To say that Angels & Demons is unbelievable, is a bit ridiculous. Anti-Matter is being pursued at this very moment with the Large Hadron Collider working on creating such a substance. A group like the Illuminati could have existed but its members don't necessarily have to be the ones that are in the film. Once again, it is a work of fiction that blends historical fact with amazing storytelling. People really need to learn how to separate fact from fiction and in this generation of reality television, it is becoming increasingly difficult. A movie like Angels & Demons transcends the petty remarks that people make about it. If people base their reviews off of the fact that it is "unbelievable", then a lot of classic movies are completely worthless and terrible. How can a movie like National Treasure be accepted quicker than a movie like Angels & Demons? Is it because it isn't controversial? There really isn't any controversy in A&D that people haven't seen or heard about before. It shouldn't be used as a negative criticism for the movie.

Overall, Angels & Demons is a thriller with a brain. It ties historical references, locations and theories together to create a story unlike any other. It is an adventure through the history of Vatican city and one that I would highly recommend everybody see. Even if you didn't enjoy The Da Vinci Code, this movie should still be entertaining to you. Robert Langdon is a wonderful character and I am excited for the third book and movie in the series. Tom Hanks is one of the few actors than I still have a lot of respect for because he obviously knows a good story when he sees it and he picked a good one here.


Entertainment Value: Very High
Why VH: The story is entertaining and smartly written, the directing is very well done and the actors do a great job of bringing their characters to life. Also, the music helps add a deeper dimension and more emotion to the movie.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion and mostly rely on entertainment factor rather than the critical acclaim, although they sometimes coincide. The rating system is as follows: Very Low, Low, Take-It-Or-Leave-It, High, Very High, and So Good It Transcends My Ratings.)

"Better Late Than Never" Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I have decided to start reviewing movies that I didn't have a chance to see in theaters but rented on DVD. These reviews will be called "Better Late Than Never" and won't have a rating scale like the "Pure Entertainment" variety but instead will have a recommendation scale (see: bottom of post).

This week, I rented The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, winner of 3 Academy Awards, to see what all of the fuss was about. I can safely say that even if my butt would have been numb afterward due to the 2 hour and 46 minute run time, I should have seen this movie in the theater. It is a deep story that combines drama, humor, history and romance to create a truly great and moving film.

To start, Benjamin Button has a truly remarkable cast. Brad Pitt plays a different role than what he usually gravitates to, in Benjamin, and brings a calm, internally focused character that ages backward physically while aging forward mentally. The true downside is that while he gets younger, everyone around him gets older and this creates problems when it comes to relationships. Cate Blanchett churns out another great performance as Daisy, the decade-spanning love interest of Benjamin. Other actors of note are Taraji P. Henson as Queenie, the guardian of Benjamin; Jared Harris, in a fantastic role as Captain Mike; and Jason Flemyng as Thomas Button, the father of Benjamin who leaves him on the steps of Queenie's retirement home. The entire cast works together to create a living, breathing world around Benjamin.

The story is the true star of this movie. It spans almost 80 years and never feels forced or boring. The adventures of Benjamin are exciting and everything is seen through his eyes and from his point of view. The audience is able to age along with him and try to understand what it would be like to be in his situation. The use of history provides a timeline and brings awareness to what time period is currently being shown. Each moment in Benjamin's life feels important and integral to the story. It is a great screenplay that is brought to the screen beautifully by David Fincher.

The special effects are certainly special. It is difficult to figure out what is fake and what is real and in this, you are immersed in the world and able to believe in it. Many people have said that Brad Pitt shouldn't have had a difficult time acting because the effects did all of the work for him but this is a discredit to him as an actor. He was able to bring life to the role and make the audience care about him. He played a 17 year old rebel in the body of a 70 year old. He played a wise 60+ year old in the body of 20 year old. The reason why it seem natural or easy is because Pitt makes the character so believable. The special effects are only meant to provide the suspension of disbelief without the audience knowing it is happening. The magic of this film is in how each aspect works so well together.

The music is sweeping and appropriate to each time period. The costumes, buildings, vehicles and all other set pieces are never out of place and always feel just right. The technical aspects of the film are almost perfect and allow the audience to escape into the 20's, 50's and so on. Again, it all works together to create something that is better than the sum of its parts.

Overall, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a movie deserving of awards; it is a movie deserving of attention. David Fincher has created a movie that works almost as a fairy tale but has grounded it in reality. The character interactions feel real and emotional; the effects of each on the other is felt profoundly. The movie may not be a masterpiece but it is about as close as you can get without being one. Movies like this only come around every once and awhile. You owe it to yourself to see this one.


Verdict: Highly Recommended
Why HR: The characters are believable and memorable, the story is engaging and well-written, the set pieces are beautifully crafted, the special effects are seamless and help aid the realness of the movie, and every part works together to create a highly enjoyable movie.

(Note: Reviews are based on personal opinion. The rating system is as follows: Avoid At All Costs, Not Recommended, Recommended, or Highly Recommended)