Lawless - 4 stars out of 10

Lawless - 4 stars out of 10

I had high expectations for "Lawless" but found myself unimpressed in the end.  I suppose that the first problem was that I thought this was a Western... but that didn't end up mattering in the end.  The story is interesting, the action is well-filmed, the gritty crime feel is ever-present, but I failed to establish a connection with the protagonist characters.  While I spent the entire time being impressed with how awesome Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman were, it never works well when the bad guys out-act the good guys.  Tom Hardy had potential as one of these heroic brothers but he was counterbalanced by Shia LaBeouf, who is sometimes too hard to see as an adult.  The girls (Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska) are pretty good but not good enough to outshine the bad guys.  I am glad that I watched this film to experience the story but it doesn't go very far beyond that.  This is a prime example of an above-average cast creating an average movie.

Sharknado - 1 star out of 10

Sharknado - 1 star out of 10

"Sharknado" is a film of "Birdemic" proportions!!!!!!  I was actually worried for the first couple of scenes that this could actually be good, but the film was thrown into a tailspin the minute that they blatantly revealed the cause of the Sharknado: Global Warming.  I hesitate to even say this, but the plot was not only pretty believable at first, but incredibly interesting.  I don't think that any film has ever had sharks swimming through the streets due to a flood but it actually worked!  I really hesitate to say this as well, but the acting actually wasn't too bad at first, either!  The film really got to a "Birdemic" level once Tara Reid came into the film.  She's the most famous actor in this film, but she was the worst one of them all!  You could tell that she had no desire to do this film and just needed a paycheck.  I blame the whole thing on her.  Including the terrible CGI.  Once things got bad, the intentional campiness really started to come out.  "I just rescued a bus full of kids.  High fives all around!"  And I like the kid whose arm is bitten off by a shark and he dies as the shark chews on his leg.  And then they drop another shark on top of him for good measure.  And was it really necessary to blow up that entire swimming pool just to kill one shark... particularly when they show an underwater shot of the shark that was obviously filmed in the middle of the ocean?  I'm pretty sure that this is the only movie in history where a shark can attack a helicopter in mid-flight.  As the story crumbles apart, so does the acting.  The acting gets worse as the movie progresses, as if the actors slowly gave up.  With the exception of Tara Reid's two children, who someone obviously plugged in there as a favor - they were awful from start to finish.  Amidst the terrible CGI effects and dialogue that is intended to be bad, this atrocity still managed to be better than "Shark Night 3-D."  And "Shark Night" was a serious film!  I would say that you need to savor the experience because a film like "Sharknado" doesn't come around often, but the previews for the Sci-Fi Channel movie that followed this one, "Blast Vegas" starring Frankie Munez, made me realize that as long as there is a demand for it, we can count on produces to give the people the terrible films that they want.  And I can't wait to see what they have in store for the sequel to "Sharknado."

National Geographic: Inside the White House - 5 stars out of 10

National Geographic: Inside the White House - 5 stars out of 10

"National Geographic: Inside the White House" takes a look at the inner workings of America's most famous house during the Clinton administration in the mid-90's.  Much has changed since this inside scoop, but Morgan Freeman's narrating voice is as soothing as ever.  I think that the most valuable part of the documentary is its historical approach to the White House.  You probably know many of these things already but National Geographic's ability to pull it all together with historical pictures and modern shots of the areas being discussed make it memorable.  It also addresses a lot of questions that you might have, like "How does the kitchen operate" and "What does the view from that balcony look like," and a lot of questions that you never thought about, like "Who is in charge of the house," "Are there a lot of clocks in the house," and "Who winds all of the clocks are there in the house".  There really isn't much to say about this documentary.  It is very informative and concise but it isn't going to surprise you with anything that you couldn't find in a history book.

Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows (2011) - 7 stars out of 10

Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows (2011) - 7 stars out of 10

Holmes has finally met his match in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows."  While the film falls short of the first one by trying to replicate the equation that made its predecessor a success, the film finds strength in its villain, Dr. Moriarty.  The first film makes it seem that Holmes can outwit any diabolical villain, but what would happen if he was faced with his intellectual equal?  This story is a mind game, which is why there was just too much video game-esque fighting.  I do love the action in these films and the train sequence was particularly awesome, but too many "visual thought processes" and far-fetched survivals made me wish for a more intellectual approach.  That being said, Robert Downey Jr. brings the perfect amount of humor and grit to the role of Holmes without going over the top, Jude Law is again his perfect  compliment, and Noomi Rapace was some good eye candy that will hopefully be back in the third installment.  Jared Harris didn't blow my mind or anything, but the writers created an awesome villain in Moriarty.  If you liked the first one, you will like "A Game of Shadows" (this time getting to visit Paris!!!), but I hope that they treat the next Holmes movie with a little more consideration toward the deductive aspect of the detective.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) - 9 stars out of 10

Sherlock Holmes (2009) - 9 stars out of 10

Guy Ritchie vividly brings Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous characters to life through this magnificent accomplishment in storytelling!  "Sherlock Holmes" captures the storytelling technique of Doyle while giving Holmes and Watson some extra kick-butt attributes!  The fighting is incredible and is presented EXACTLY as one would expect Holmes' mind to analyze any situation.  I was initially concerned with the casting of Robert Downey, Jr. as he seemed a little rough around the edges to play Holmes, but this attitude makes Holmes much cooler than I ever envisioned him.  He is actually one of the more interesting characters that I have ever seen.  Jude Law is incredible as Watson and it took me a few minutes to accept that it was actually him.  More importantly than the special effects (which effectively transport us back to Fin de siécle England) is the story.  Steeped in mystery and magic which must eventually be rationalized, there are just enough twists and turns to make you wonder if anybody will ever make sense of this.  The writers created an incredible combination of comedy and deduction, my favorite monologue occuring when Holmes recounts his blindfolded carriage ride, knowing precisely where he ended up.  Add in a spicy romantic subplot to an inspired period-soundtrack from Hans Zimmer and you have an enjoyable film that is sure to leave a smile on your face and keep you guessing until you realize that it is "elementary, my dear audience."

An Extremely Goofy Movie - 3 stars out of 10

An Extremely Goofy Movie - 3 stars out of 10

The cover art for "An Extremely Goofy Movie" (which sports Goofy and Max doing disco moves, Max of course wearing skateboard gear) should be enough to prepare you for what lies inside of the box.  After the heartwarming father-son "A Goofy Movie," filled with slapstick humor, catchy 90's songs, and Big Foot, this sequel is hokey and a huge step down in quality.  The writers had to have known what they were doing when they wrote this horribly cheesy dialogue and based their plot around an X-games-esque competition.  In college.  With a character named "Bradley Uppercrust III."  I will admit that the writers cleverly put Goofy and Max at the same college at the same time which creates some great comedy, but I cannot overlook the lack of emotion in the film.  Its predecessor addresses important themes like a parent watching their child become independent and the damage caused by a little white lie.  This film addresses important themes like finding acceptance in a fraternity and the effects of cheating by putting a rocket booster on a skateboard.  Perhaps the largest injustice is the writing out of Roxanne, one of the best characters from the first film.  They don't even explain what happened to her - it is as if she never existed.  Instead, they brought back Pauly Shore as Bobby.  Wonderful.  [Sarcasm].  Outside of the many shortcomings, MOST of the returning characters are as lovable as ever, Goofy's love interest was very cute and the movie has a great 70's soundtrack.  I'm sure that some adult appeal was redeemed with sequences choreographed to "Knock on Wood," "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing," and "C'mon Get Happy" but I really missed the traditional Disney musical numbers.  Those musical numbers were really what made the first film special (particularly Tevin Campell's 90's pop music).  "An Extremely Goofy Movie" might be fun for kids because of its slapstick moments but it simply lacks the magic of a Disney classic.

Side Effects (2013) - 7 stars out of 10

Side Effects (2013) - 7 stars out of 10

"Side Effects" is an unpredictable thriller from director Steven Soderbergh.  While no film can compare to Soderbergh's "Ocean's 11" series, his blend of bold characters and intrigue make for an enjoyable watch.  What would happen if the side effects of an experimental drug led a woman to murdered her husband while sleepwalking?  Just typing it out seems absurd and yet, it completely works and had me hanging on the edge of my seat, anxious to discover what could happen next.  Jude Law is just awesome, grabbing sympathy from the audience right off the bat.  I wasn't crazy about the ending but the plot resolution was genius and twisted in ways that you'll never see it coming.  I was also a big fan of Rooney Mara, preferring to see her face without her "Dragon Tattoo accessories."  Catherine Zeta-Jones was... this was not her best role.  Maybe it was just the character, but I did not enjoy watching her.  The trailer looked amazing, I was disappointed that the film fell short at first, and then it surpassed any expectation I had.  "Side Effects" is a keeper!