The Bourne Legacy

Director: Tony Gilroy
Writers: Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Actors: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, & Edward Norton
[Can a shiny new cast reopen a legendary series?]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

It did not take long for the film adaptions of Robert Ludlum's Bourne series, made up of The Bourne Identity (book-1980 film-2002), The Bourne Supremacy (book-1886, film-2004), and The Bourne Ultimatum (book-2007 film-1890), to establish themselves as this generation's standard for action/adventure movies about spies. Tragically, Ludlum did not get to see this trilogy make the jump to cinema since he passed away a year before the first movie's release.

Not long after Ludlum's death and the release of the first Bourne movie, Eric Van Lustbader began writing novels that have continued Jason Bourne's story. He has written six books so far, The Bourne Legacy (book-2004 film-2012), The Bourne Betrayal (book-2007), The Bourne Sanction (book-2008), The Bourne Deception (book-2009), The Bourne Objective (book-2010), The Bourne Dominion (book-2011), and The Bourne Imperative (book-2012), which has been well received considering the fact that they are a continuation of another author's work.

Now enter the new The Bourne Legacy film, which attempts to reopen the series with the title of Lustbader's first novel, but with a new main character and completely different story. Does this movie deliver that goods we have come to expect from the Bourne series or does it crash and burn like many an after-thought sequel? Let's find out!

WHAT I LIKED

Rachel Weisz. I am, of course, biased, as I am of the persuasion that The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) would not be worth watching without her.

The wolves. Now I am not claiming that these wolves are cooler than White Fang (1991) or scarier than the wolves in Fire and Ice (1983), but they are worth mentioning.

Fire and Ice (1983)

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

I try to not engage in movie hating mid movie, especially when my wife is present because she does not appreciate such behavior. However, this movie was so bad that about three-fourths of the way through the movie my wife began tearing this movie a new one. This started with the POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS Barricade Tape in Manila, Philippines. While it is true that both Filipino and English are the official languages of the Phillipines, one would think that the police would use tape with the native language.

Aaron Cross has a creepy fixation with doing mean things to wolves.

Aaron consistently refers to his two medications as "chems". What is this, Fallout (video game-1997)? While the term "chems" is legitimate slang for synthetic medication, I have a difficult time believing that this secret government agency with names for everything refuses to refer to blue and green pills as anything different than "chems", "blues", and "greens".

One of the best things about Jason Bourne in this series is the fact that while he is capable of amazing feats of skill and yet he is still bound to the normal restraints of being human. These restraints are cast off with little to no mention in The Bourne Legacy. The agents are now super-powered or at least capable of climbing things like The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), jumping ridiculous distances, falling from bone-shattering heights, and shooting air support like they are in a round of Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 3 (video game-2011).

If one was to take Jason Bourne and make him chattier / whinier then you would have Aaron Cross. Also, Aaron doesn't seem to snap between friend and killer like Jason does either, which is one of the main reasons Jason is so intriguing. All-around Aaron is a weaker character.

The story of The Bourne Legacy was not good. It was so schizophrenic that I was unable to tie most of it together. This does not bode well for a plot-driven movie like this one.

This movie was far too comfortable with some people, agencies, and events being unexplained until later in the movie or at all. Who is this guy played by Edward Norton? I watched the movie and I have no idea. What does his agency do other than pester other agencies? I watched the movie and I have no idea. What do his assistants actually do other than talk smack? I watched the movie and I have no idea. Why was this movie even made? I watched the movie and I have no idea. The most annoying delayed information was when Aaron talks about his life before the blue pill. He talks about his low IQ as if he just likes being smarter, as opposed to having previous brain trauma, as you find out later.

No one likes a one-upper and this movie is exactly that. You thought Treadstone and Blackbriar were scary? Outcome is scarier! You thought Jason Bourne was awesome? All the new agents have super powers! You thought those agents were cool? We have even cooler ones! Not only is one-upping annoying, it does not make sense considering just how powerful these people and programs are.

LARX was the lamest super-powered bad guy ever. Galactus, in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) was scarier and he was just a space cloud. All LARX did in the few minutes he was on the screen was chase them and not very effectively. New Goblin's paintball mask was more useful in Spider-man 3 (2007).

In an attempt to make viewers feel better about how poorly this movie connects itself to the previous three films, The Bourne Legacy zooms out while playing "Extreme Ways" by Moby, the same song used to end The Bourne Ultimatum (2007). This left a bitter taste in my mouth.

This movie gives inspirational credit to Robert Ludlum but not Eric Van Lustbader, even though they stole his book's title.

FINAL THOUGHTS

It was painfully obvious that this movie project was started and abandoned by those already working on the series, only to be picked up by those wanting a piece of the action. I give The Bourne Legacy a D- for being that annoying sequel that everyone wants to ignore.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

I would recommend that you not see it. If you are fan of the Bourne series and enjoy movie plots that make sense, then brace yourself for the inevitable disappointment and confusion you will feel when watching this film. I won't say that I completely regret seeing "The Bourne Redundancy", Paul Greengrass' nickname for the film, but it will not be on my watch again list anytime soon.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 5 of 10 (D-)

Plot: 3 of 10 (an unnecessarily complex plot that explains itself too late or not at all)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.!/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-55%/A-58%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (While the action is not as fierce as previous Bourne films it still has quite a bit of: shooting, stabbing, punching, bashing, breaking, snapping, crashing, wrecking, exploding, etc.)

Language/Profanity: 4 of 10 (occasional use of: "ass", variants of "shit", and "bitch")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (Aaron Cross is shirtless a few times)

Spiritual Aspects: 1 of 10 (the names Jesus and Christ are used a expletives)

Drugs/Alcohol: 1 of 10 (nothing worth mentioning)

The Dark Kight Rises

Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, & David S. Goyer
Actors: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, and more of Christopher Nolan's favorite people
[The cast is a mashup of Batman Begins (2005), The Dark Knight (2008), and Inception (2010)]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

It would be a gross understatement to say that there has been some excitement surrounding the theater release of The Dark Knight Rises, the eighth full-length, live-action Batman film and the ending to the most recent trilogy. Will this blend of Bob Kane's classic characters, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns (comic series-1986) and Christopher Nolan's modernization of Batman be everything its fans want it to be and more? By opening weekend box office standards it was a success, netting $160,887,295 and dethroning none other than Dark Knight (2008) from the third place record, but does that make it a hit? Let's find out!

WHAT I LIKED

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman.

I could tell within the first couple of minutes of seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt in this movie that I was going to like him. Phenomenal pick!

*Major SPOILER* (highlight below to view)

I have always liked Catwoman better as an dark ally to Batman rather than the deranged seductress she is more commonly portrayed as, like Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns (1992) and Halle Berry in Catwoman (2004).

The plot twists in this movie were excellent.

The ending credits acknowledged Francis Scott Key as the writer of our national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner". 

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

Bane had one of the worse voice-overs I have ever heard in a film, which is saying a lot when you have seen Kung Pow: Enter the Fist (2002). There was a reported fix because it was mostly inaudible, but this apparently led them to the other extreme. No matter where Bane was, even in an airplane with a bag over his head and a door open, it sounded as if he was leaning over you talking. The only time he voice got dynamic was when he spoke over the football PA system, which made him difficult to understand at times. You would think that a movie with a two hundred and fifty million dollar budget could figure out where the happy medium is.

The whole Batman sounds like he has throat cancer thing got old in Batman Begins (2005), yet somehow it made its way into both The Dark Knight (2008) and now The Dark Knight Rises. Is the need for consistency greater than the need for improvement?

No matter how many times attempted witty humor has failed the Batman movies, DC continues to allow it their movies.

They introduced several new and supposedly important characters into the movie with little background information on them, like Foley. Why?

Either Batman's jet/helicopter is immune to close-range cannon fire and slows missiles or NOTHING, because apparently his jet/helicopter is immune to close-range cannon fire and slows missiles. I am all about suspending some disbelief, but the Bat dodging a cannon that is only feet away from it without moving is less believable than Peter Parker using Bing© in The Amazing Spider-Man (2012).

The Dark Knight Rises made too many mistakes, which ranged from harmless misspellings to large gaps in continuity. These are not only frustrating for attentive viewers but they damage the experience with several viewings. The smaller problems that bothered me the most included: sudden changes in daylight, repeated countdown times on a bomb, poor prop changes, bending science and law for plot, and several set issues. The most annoying problem though, in my opinion... *Major SPOILER* (highlight below to view)

was when Ms. Tate is taken by Bane after Commissioner Gordon's hearing, but then is with Lucius when Bruce breaks in to find him. Bruce is then told after the fact that Ms. Tate was taken to Bane's hideout.

I understand that movies are not perfect, remember the cars driving in the background of the cornfield in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), but this was my first viewing. You know that even more will be discovered as time passes.

The ending betrayed the theme of the series.  (see Cinema Blend.com's article)

This movie is incredibly long, to the point of bordering on ordeal status.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I am not going to go as far as Batman & Robin (1997) director Joel Schumacher and claim that Christopher Nolan ruined Batman, but this movie is far from perfection. I give The Dark Knight Rises a B for being better than average.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

For some strange reason, both Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008) lose a lot of their luster when they are viewed without a big screen and surround sound. So if you want to see this movie badly, I would recommend seeing it in theaters, as The Dark Knight Rises will most likely follow suit. If you are trying to save money, then see that thing matinee style.

Batman (1966)

SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 7 of 10 (A decent story with great plot twists but several big mistakes)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 9.1/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-87%/A-93%

CONTENT


Violence: 7 of 10 (consistent violence with minimal blood or gore: neck breaks, stabbings, fist fights, bodily disfigurement, shootings, bombings, hostages are tortured and executed)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (infrequent use of the following: variants of "damn", "hell", "bastard", variants of "bitch")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 5 of 10 (a hint at prostitution, Bruce kisses two women, sex is implied, characters are seen wrapped in blankets snuggling/caressing/kissing, implied gang rape)

Spiritual Aspects: 2 of 10 (the name of Jesus is inappropriately used more than once)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (alcohol is consumed at parties and bars throughout the movie, a character appears to be drunk, some smoking)

Prometheus

Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Jon Spaihts & Damon Lindelof
Actors: Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshall-Green, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce, & Idris Elba
[Proof that you do not need Sigourney Weaver for a good Alien movie]

Rated R {for non-squeamish adults}

Ridley Scott revisits the world of his science fiction masterpiece Alien (1979) with Prometheus, a daring prequel to the Alien quadrilogy. Fans of the classic series wait eagerly to find out if Prometheus will fall in line with Scott's Alien (1979), and its even more popular sequel directed by James Cameron, Aliens (1986), or if it will leave them wanting like David Fincher's third installment, Alien3 (1992), and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's fourth, Alien: Resurrection (1997). Can Scott bring a thrilling, game-changing performance like he did with Alien (1979)? It will take more than a cool sounding slogan to make me a believer.

"In space no one can hear you scream..." - Alien (1979)

WHAT I LIKED

The budget of Prometheus was more than ten times that of Alien (1979). I am not saying that budget makes a movie, because that is far from the truth, but it definitely did not hurt. In fact, in several pre-release interviews Scott mentioned his excitement about the technological advancement and being more able to show his vision for the film.

Two viral clips, called "Prometheus Viral", were released to promote the film and give viewers important back story before they saw the movie. Is this the next stage in movie advertisement evolution? (Both videos can be viewed below)



This movie is all about the thrilling plot twists...
"If the ending to [Prometheus] is just going to be the room that John Hurt walks into that's full of [alien] eggs [in Alien], there's nothing interesting in that, because we know where it's going to end. Good stories, you don't know where they're going to end."
- Damon Lindelof, writer

The story was not spoon fed to the audience. There were several moments in the movie where I had to work plot connections on my own or information was not explained. Some examples of this would be David reporting that crew has been asleep for "2 years, 4 months, 18 days, 36 hours, 15 minutes" [unexplained], Dr. Shaw carbon dating something on a foreign planet [unexplained], director Vickers having sex to prove she is not an android like David [connection] and drug-fueled Dr. Shaw being about to run after traumatic abdominal surgery [unexplained]. While I admit that this bothers me in most movies, the confusion added to the thriller of this film.

Prometheus brought visuals and sound on par with several of Ridley Scott's other masterpieces, like Blade Runner (1982) and Gladiator (2000).

The characters and their interactions with each other were without a doubt the best part of this film. Both Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron really brought it with David and director Vickers, but Noomi Rapace's performance as Dr. Shaw was nothing short of amazing.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

I really hate when commercials show you key parts of a film, especially when a movie is in the thriller genre. Prometheus was guilty of this trend in all of its commercials excluding its first teaser. (That trailer can be viewed at the bottom of this post)

The viral clips, which included important back story, were not in the film. This was an huge oversight, as most movie go-ers are not avid Alien Youtube©, Facebook©,and Twitter© fans.

If you go to Prometheus to be startled like you were in Alien (1979), prepare yourself for inevitable disappointment. Prometheus relies more heavily on story than its predecessor, which is not really a bad thing other than it left a hole in my heart in the shape of jumping in my seat/grabbing my neighbor in sudden panic.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Prometheus was far from the best movie of the year, but it was more than refreshing to see a well-made  aliens vs. humans film that did not leave me feeling like I wasted my time... and that if I could go back in time and stop myself from doing so, I would have done so five times! *cough* Skyline (2010) *cough* I give Prometheus a B for being better than average.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

This is a genre film. If you do not like science fiction AND thriller films, do not waste your time. For those who enjoy said genres, I would encourage you to see Prometheus on a big screen with killer sound so that you can enjoy its vast visuals and sound. Definitely worth the cost of my theater ticket.

SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B-)

Plot: 7 of 10 (a classic science fiction plot, insane plot twists included)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-73%/A-72%

CONTENT

Violence: 9 of 10 (off-the-hinge intense violence/gore: several characters are bio-poisoned, decay/disintegrate, threatened, burned/melted by acid, burned/caught on fire, straggled, choked, squeezed, decapitated, thrown, and have limbs broken. Frightening images include: aliens slithering into character's screaming mouths, exposed bone, a character's body is taken over by an alien, an alien pregnancy, a violent emergency surgery, aliens doing alien stuff, and large alien tentacles attacking and killing several characters)

Language/Profanity: 7 of 10 (use of the following: "damn", "hell", "shit", "bitch", "bugger", "f**k")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 6 of 10 (crew members are seen in their non-provocative, bandage-resembling undergarments all throughout the movie, some are seen changing, a woman sits in her boyfriend's lap while they kiss and embrace, the lay in bed together, she begins to remove his shirt, sex is implied and confirmed later by another character when it is discovered that she is pregnant, a man jokes about two other men having sex, a woman flirts with a fellow crew member before inviting him to her room, sex is implied)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (the story credits the creation of humanity to aliens, characters wrestle with this concept throughout the movie)

Drugs/Alcohol: 5 of 10 (alcohol is consumed several times throughout the movie, a character rigs his space suit to allow him to smoke what he implies is weed)

Marvel's The Avengers

Director: Joss Whedon
Writers: Joss Whedon & Zak Penn
Actors: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson, and many more!
[A cast of everyone you ever wanted]

Rated PG-13 {Please remember that PG-13 means 13 and up parents, GEEZ!}

Inspired by the comic book marvels of Stan Lee & Jack Kirby, Marvel's The Avengers had fans electrified with a first trailer of voice-overs and an animated logo. The full weight of this excitement was shown in its breaking of opening weekend box office records with $207,400,000, crushing the $169,189,427 made by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) by just under 40 million dollars. Money is not everything though, as we have seen with so many super hero movies... *cough* Green Lantern (2011) *cough* So let's take a look!

WHAT I LIKED

I was quite worried that having several main characters and their stories in a single movie would be end in tears, especially since they are super heroes. However, this movie blew me away with a integration of characters like nothing I have ever seen before. Here is my run down...

Hawkeye actually mattered in this movie. Definitely a step up from Thor (2011).

Black Widow was surprisingly important to the story plot. I liked her performance in Iron Man 2 (2010) but her character seemed to work better as member of the super hero team.

Thor had a solid performance that added greatly to the story. I liked Thor (2011) but I felt like he seemed too other-worldly. Marvel's The Avengers gave him the human connection he needed.

The Hulk was a character that took some time to get into the flow of the movie, but once he got going I wished the smashing would never end. Mark Ruffalo's performance as The Hulk not only crushed Eric Bana's The Hulk (2003), a disappointment to the Marvel franchise, but it found room for improvement in Edward Norton's The Incredible Hulk (2008), the salvation of The Hulk series .

Captain America brought the same enjoyable class to the movie that he did in Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) and it could not have fit better.

Iron Man / Tony Stark was the best part of this movie. End of line.*

Awesome characters aside, the combat in this movie did not leaving me wanting anything other than another Avengers movie. 

*Tron (1982)

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

This movie was over marketed, more specifically over commercial-ed. I really dislike it when I am shown a significant amount of defining moments from a movie without context.

!!!NOTE!!!
I have seen several other reviews that claim Marvel's The Avengers was too formulaic. This is a terrible complaint. A movie with comic roots is going to be formulaic if it is being true to said roots. 

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie was everything I wanted and more. Even with people telling me all the best parts before seeing it. Marvel's The Avengers deserves the rare A for saving the world and my watching experience.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It is definitely worth the theater ticket. I will be adding this movie to my collection ASAP.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 9 of 10 (A)

Plot: 9 of 10 (An incredible amount of action while still explaining exactly what was needed)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 8.8/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-93%/A-96%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (intense violence but not graphic with minimal blood: constant hand-to-hand combat, a man's eye is gouged out, people of shot/stabbed/burned/bludgeoned/blasted, aliens are shot/stabbed/burned/bludgeoned/blasted/disembodied/crushed/, blood is seen on wounds/playing cards/walls/dead main characters)

Language/Profanity: 4 of 10 (infrequent use of: "damn", "hell", "bastard", "oh my God", and "son of bitch")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 4 of 10 (skin-tight somewhat revealing costumes are worn by the female characters, an intimate relationship is implied between Stark and Pepper by their flirty banter and actions, Banner is nude but given clothes before he is fully shown)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (Thor and Loki are constantly referred to as gods or demi-gods, Captain America after meeting both claims there is only one God)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (Occasionally drinking throughout, a character is accused of using "weed")

Wrath of the Titans

Director: Jonathan Liebesman
Writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson, & Greg Berlanti
Actors: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Édgar Ramírez, Toby Kebbell, Rosamund Pike, & Bill Nighy
[The cast was a good combination of old faves and fresh news]

Rated PG-13 {probably not a great idea for small children, especially those afraid of monsters}

A sequel to the Clash of the Titans (2010) remake, Wrath of the Titans had a lot on its plate. The most consistent complaint that I have heard about its predecessor was that people wanted to see more titan fighting and less weird mythological story. Surprise! That is exactly what this movie wants to show you for an hour and a half.

WHAT I LIKED

Not only do you get to see Perseus go to town on several titans but you also get to see the gods fight it out like the immortals in Highlander (1986). The graphics used on the landscapes, these guys, and their weapons was awesome, 3D or not. If I had a spear that shot electricity and turned into a thunderbolt I would want for nothing the rest of my life. Also, the two recasts in the movie (Andromeda and Ares) really brought it like they should have been in the first movie.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

This movie really lacked story and depth. A plot, which it did have, involved killing off mythology deities and creatures like they needed to be gone... FOREVER! While I liked most of their interpretations of how mythological beings should look, I wasn't crazy about Cronos (or Kronos) being a lava monster. Though when you consider any other incarnations of him (like God of War III) which are painfully bad, he is more than bearable.

Also, *Minor SPOILER* (highlight below to view)

The character Io, played by Alexa Davalos, who was one of the best parts of the first movie, is not in this movie. They show you her grave in the first few minutes. This was frustrating because they had raised her from the dead at the end of the first movie, only for her to die again between movies.

FINAL THOUGHTS

While this movie lacks greatly in story, it is not lacking in content. I enjoyed the 99 minutes of run-stab-run action. I give this movie a C for being entertaining.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

If you are not a Clash of the Titans remake fan then you are probably wasting your money seeing this movie in theaters, unless you get super cheap matinee tickets like me or just love movies with ridiculous premises.


SCORE
Personal Rating: 7 of 10 (C)

Plot: 6 of 10 (who needs story when you have so much fighting... right?)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 6.6/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-25%/A-70%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (there were quite a few flying bodies, and of course punching, throwing and stabbing)

Language/Profanity: 2 of 10 ("Go to hell! That's exactly where I'm headed.", I don't remember much beyond that)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (innocent romance, there is a single kiss, one character sarcastically claims another has feelings for him)

Spiritual Aspects: 3 of 10 (unless you have a problem with Greek gods and/or their deaths then there isn't much here)

Drugs/Alcohol: 1 of 10 (nothing of consequence)

The Hunger Games

Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Suzanne Collins, Gary Ross, & Billy Ray
Actors: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, & Wes Bentley
[A cast of knowns and well-knowns]

Rated PG-13 {for teens and up}

Based on the first book in Suzanne Collins' popular teen novel trilogy, The Hunger Games had fans worried that more changes than the THE added to its title would destroy their much loved story. This (for the most part) melted away as it broke opening weekend box office records with $152,535,747 in sales, placing it behind the $169,189,427 made by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) and the $158,411,483 made by The Dark Knight (2008).

WHAT I LIKED

Many movies could take a lesson from The Hunger Games' use of appropriate violence. Do not misunderstand me. This movie is quite violent, but it shows only what is needed to convey its message, nothing more and nothing less.

Call me a sucker for well designed costumes and sets, but I was quite impressed. Especially with how it played off some really outrageous characters, costumes, and customs as normal. You should see what these people were wearing!

I fell in love with the story in this film. It had so many great elements, so that were new and some that were inspired by other world events or works. I was a bit worried going into the theater that The Hunger Games movie adaption would lean more heavily on elements in other similar and popular stories, like Battle Royale (book-1999, film-2000), that also were adapted into films but luckily it did not.

Most movies involving insidious governments all about injustice and oppression are extremely preaching, like V for Vendetta (2005) and many others, but I was extremely relieved that The Hunger Games avoided this painful and overused rut.

WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

There were several moments in the film that I wished I could hear what the characters were thinking. I am not advocating radio-like voices like the one's in the Speed Racer (1967) tv series. It was obvious, though, that the book could and probably did use these opportunities (at least for the main character, Katniss).

Yet again, I find myself disappointed and distractied by fans of a movie. For your convenience and understanding, I have two divided them into two classes, the purists and the racist purists. While I admit that the purists are not as bad as a group like the Twilight (2008) moms, who were practically killing themselves over a fictional character from a poorly written book quadrilogy, no one wants to hear excessive whining during a movie about something small they would have been oblivious to. Regardless, complaints are made less valid by the fact that the author, Suzanne Collins, was working directly with the makers of the film. The racist purists, however, are a totally different kind of crazy. I admit that when a movie changes something pivotal to a character's development I get a bit nervous, but this mostly out of concern for the original message of the original media. Imagine if Black Dynamite (2009) was a white guy. If the changes are non-impacting or add to the story then I have no problem. It was obvious that they do not share my optimism with their nasty and racist (not to mention highly publicized) comments about some characters being black. Shame on you racist purists! 

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie was great, but it was not perfect. I give it a B+ for showing all other books-to-film how it should be done.


WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

It is worth the theater ticket. I would definitely recommend The Hunger Games in whatever form of media is available to you (excluding smoke signal and/or reenactment).


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 9 of 10 (definitely possessed those rich book roots that other book adaptions dream of)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.7/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-85%/A-86%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (children are forceful taken from their parents to fight in a survival game, a child kills another with a rock, a child is burned, a child is stung to death, a child's neck is broken, a child is poisoned, there is constant weapon combat leading to several sword/knife/spear/bow/etc. deaths, dead bodies are shown but not lingered on, there is a violent riot, and there is an implied forced suicide)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (infrequent use of: "damn", "hell" and "oh my God")

Sexuality/Sensuality: 2 of 10 (a few jealous looks and kisses are exchanged)

Spiritual Aspects: 1 of 10 (nothing worth noting)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (One of the supporting characters is a drunkard, and unidentifiable colored drinks are consumed throughout the movie)

John Carter

Director: Andrew Stanton
Writers: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, & Michael Chabon
Actors: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Thomas Haden Church, Willem Dafoe, & Mark Strong
[This movie had lots of familiar faces even if you are terrible for names]

Rated PG-13 {definitely a movie for teens and up}

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic novel "A Princess of Mars", John Carter of Mars showed that deviation from an original source can work if the source is used as an inspiration rather than a fanboy-pleasing crutch. I am, of course, comparing this to a similar Disney experiment, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which struggled greatly with complications from its video game series to film conversion. 

WHAT I LIKED

It was very obvious that this movie's budget exceeded 200 million. Contrasting movies like Green Lantern (2011) and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2010), which squandered their high budgets with cheesy and even painful CGI, John Carter put those funds to good use with beautiful landscapes and non-distracting CGI.

I was also impressed with the acting in this movie, as others like it have suffered from the unnatural and awkward flirting bug, which I hear some of the fans of the novel wanted.

I absolutely loved this movie's throwback to the classic space opera feel, placing it in with some giants of film like Flash Gordon (1936) and Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977). Besides their vast scope, there is something about these films that is just charming. Needless to say, I left the theater wanting a follow up story.


WHAT I DID NOT LIKE

My only real complaint about this movie is how poorly it was marketed. It was not until the day of its release that I saw a good trailer (embed below) and became interested in seeing it. All other marketing and trailers were painful at best.

FINAL THOUGHTS

This movie definitely surprised me with both its creativity and quality. This movie is easily deserving of a B rating.

WHEN SHOULD YOU SEE IT?

I would definitely recommend as a rental. If you enjoy movies like this then you should consider seeing it in theaters.


SCORE

Personal Rating: 8 of 10 (B)

Plot: 8 of 10 (obviously had book roots)

How does this TS review compare to major reviews?
IMDB 7.0/10
Rotten Tomatoes C-51%/A-69%

CONTENT

Violence: 7 of 10 (it is fairly violent: with constant gun and sword battles, executions, a torture scene, a beheading, a saddening flashback, and skeletons to match)

Language/Profanity: 5 of 10 (there was some: with "hell", "damn", and "goddamn" sprinkled covertly into it)

Sexuality/Sensuality: 5 of 10 (healthy sexuality is show: characters exchange longing looks but do not have sex until they are married, his wife is shown covered in sheets afterward)

Spiritual Aspects: 5 of 10 (this a big issue in the film: as the angel-like bad guys claim they run the show under the guise of a deity, that their powers are technology that isn't for sharing, and that they will do whatever it takes to stay on top)

Drugs/Alcohol: 4 of 10 (John walks into a bar for a drink early in the film, and is shown drinking a few times)