"In Time"

So... Sci-fi thrillers. Sci-fi thrillers can be filed into any number of places. They can be filed into the pure-fun adrenalin-rush kind of film that doesn't seek to say a thing. They can be just as mindless as your average crime thriller.

And then, they can use their hook to sort of comment on social issues that go down today.

You don't get cookies for figuring out which category today's movie falls into, just telling you now.

In Time

In the near future, man has been cured of aging: people will stop aging at twenty five, and now the amount of time a person has left to live has become the world's chief unit of currency. In this world, the rich live forever while the poor live by the days. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a man who lives in a ghetto in this world. When he is given a hundred and sixteen years by a mysterious, suicidal millionaire, however, he finds himself sucked up in something bigger. Along with Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried), the millionaire heiress of a bank tycoon, he becomes a Robin Hood kind of figure to the poor.

So... I don't think I need to tell you what the movie discusses with its hook, or the fact that with Occupy Wall Street/The Nation picking up heat this movie couldn't have been better timed. But if I do... well, it uses this thing to discuss class divisions in modern day America. To this end, it plays with a lot of the possibilities involved with this world. It manages to do that thing that is most difficult in a sci-fi movie: it manages to explain how the world works without ever having to resort to telling the audience about it. And trust me, it's extremely effective, as the viewer gets more invested in the world and what it has to say about our own state than he/she would have if most of the rules of this world had been told to us.

In terms of the metaphor that is explored... Well, the metaphor is pretty appropriate, but if there's one thing I had to say about how it discusses the issue, I think that sometimes it stretches the metaphor a little bit. There is being subtle about a message, and then there is slapping you in the face with 'this is messed up'. It's a very neat thing to see just how much time as a unit of currency affects the proceedings, but there are a few points when the metaphor is stretched a little too far. Thus, the message tends to get overpowering, and at some points the movie actually becomes less interesting because of it.

But that said, it's still a reasonably entertaining little movie. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried make for two very appealing leads, and at the end of the day, we want these characters to succeed. The entire rest of the cast (including Cillian Murphy and Alex Pettyfer in what I think is a career-changing performance for Pettyfer) is also quite good, and they make the most of their roles (even Olivia Wilde, who makes the most of the (almost literal) five minutes that she has in the movie). The action, while fairly standard, is visible and easy to keep track of, and so the whole thing more or less still comes together.

So while it does tend to stretch its metaphor to the point that it is bashing us over the head with it, In Time still manages to be somewhat successful for what it is. Honestly, I think the mark that makes this movie is that I thought the premise worked really well in the movie's universe. When I first heard about this movie, I thought it was going to be the silliest movie of the year, but I was pleasantly proven wrong. And nevertheless, it's a fun little thriller at the end of the day.

3/4

It has a few flaws, but is still worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Paranormal Activity 3"

Okay, so the first two Paranormal Activity movies were good movies, going around doing crazier things with horror. They were both atmospheric, they both worked really well, and they warranted a second sequel.

So what's that sequel?

Well... it's today's movie.

Paranormal Activity 3

Katie and Kristi had encountered the ghost before, and now, we see the first time they saw it. Kristi and Katie are little girls at that time, and when strange things start happening around the house, things get absolutely crazy.

And crazy, in the typical Paranormal Activity way. As with the first two films, there is a lot of building of atmosphere that is done. These movies have always been slow, and this one gets all the cues down right. The scares start off with a few very, very minor things, and they only build in intensity as the movie goes on. And once they really start coming, they are absolutely visceral in their realization.

So then why does this movie feel like the PA franchise is starting to lose its novelty?

Well... I can think of a few reasons, but I guess the two big ones are really important:

The first one: CGI. We can see it now. Paranormal Activity itself used all practical effects. It had to, given that it was made on a ridiculously tight budget. Paranormal Activity 2 didn't use all that much, but what CGI was used wasn't really all that noticeable? But here? Oh, there's CGI all right, and what there is looks really bad in comparison with the practical effects. It's not used often, but when it is, it really sticks out, and that's never a good thing with a movie.

The second thing, and this is a huge one: END. CREDITS. Paranormal Activity did not have them. Paranormal Activity 2 did not have them. So why does Paranormal Activity 3 have them? It completely breaks the immersion if you cut to "directed by so and so" after the last shot of the movie. Seriously, people. Seriously?

And this isn't counting some of the other problems with this movie. There are child actresses in this, and unfortunately, the girl who played Kristi to me didn't feel very convincing at all in her role. On the whole, there were some things in the acting that just didn't work at all. And then, there's the fact that many facets of the plot make little to no sense, particularly during the last fifteen minutes or so. All this tends to catch up with you as you exit the theater.

And in the end? It shows signs that Paranormal Activity 3 may just be the point when the PA franchise is starting to get bad. I was sitting in a theater where half the audience was laughing at some things. At first I got a little annoyed, but as I watched the movie, I began to find myself agreeing with them. Is it tense? Yes. But once you leave the theater, you're asking yourself "what was I so scared about?"

Thus, why the franchise may have gone past the point where any good movies can be made from it.

2/4

It has its moments, but overall you might be left disappointed.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

P.S. Yes, I know I didn't leave a review last week. I'm sorry. A lot of things were going on last weekend, and unfortunately I wasn't able to get a review out. I'll try to make up for it this week, though, so stay tuned.

"Real Steel"

Expectations are a funny thing. About a week before release, I was expecting today's movie to be really bad, awful even. So lo and behold, when I check Rotten Tomatoes (yes, I check movie ratings on RT prior to release) and find that it's actually hovering relatively high on the tomatometer for most of the days leading up to the release. So I decided I'd give this movie a chance.

And... well... here we are, with today's movie.

Real Steel

Charlie (Hugh Jackman) is a former professional boxer who got ousted from the game when crowds began to crowd around boxing with robots instead of people. Thus, he falls on really hard times, for both himself and his robot maintenance lady Bailey (Evangeline Lily). However, this changes when the death of an ex-girlfriend of his leads him into looking after his son Max (Dakota Goyo), things change when Max finds a bot named Atom that turns out to become a huge hit on the underground circuit, and then in the professional ring.

So essentially, Rocky, if it was being done with giant fighting robots and a random kid plunked down if Mickey wasn't there.

But over the course of the movie, I found I really didn't care that it was a Rocky retread. Because all the individual elements still come together.

The acting especially makes everything work. Hugh Jackman brings a great energy to the part of Charlie, and while he is a bit of a jerk at the start of the movie, we're with him throughout the entire ride for a lot of reasons, and all the supporting actors do their thing well, even the ones with the smaller amounts of material. Honestly, though, I think the biggest props go to Dakota Goyo, who took a part that could have been extremely annoying and grating and turned it into one of the most engaging parts of the whole movie. Seriously, the kid's a good actor, and I think he'll be a talent to watch.

And the action is really good. Yes, we can see it all, and yes, it's incredibly exciting. You wouldn't think that watching computer-generated robots fight would be so engaging, but, well, here you have it, and in much more exciting form than in your average Bayformers movie. I think the one misstep this movie made was to rely on having one too many fight montages, but even that can be forgiven when they're still pretty entertaining to watch.

And in terms of the plot? Yeah, everything is played safe, but in many ways it's a good kind of safe, because some bits actually feel a little more fresh that way. There aren't a very large amount of subplots surrounding the movie, but in the end that small amount helps keep the movie focused on the main plot. And in the end, it's a focus that the movie could not have gone without, for everything feels so much more satisfying since we know what the stakes are for each character and we can follow and sympathize with the characters more.

It's tough to say exactly how Real Steel works. I know that many times, playing things safe ends up coming up uninspired, but in a few select cases, I think it's possible for exceptions to be made. And this is one of those cases, in which we get a movie that is thoroughly entertaining and, in the end, quite good.

So yeah.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"50/50"

So, cancer. Cancer, cancer, cancer, one of the leading causes of death in the United States of America, and that disease that puts so much pressure on life. And one that goes around with it.

So how does one deal with it? Well... there are lots of ways, depending on how you are related.

And today's movie is a comedy about that.

50/50

Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a writer for a local radio station, has a supportive girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), and a great friend in Kyle (Seth Rogen). However, all this is jilted with the sudden revelation that at the ripe age of 27, he has a very rare form of spinal cancer. And so, he finds himself facing 50/50 odds with Kyle as his friend through everything.

So... a comedy about cancer. Of course, cancer is an extremely sensitive subject, and has to be treated with aplomb. Too much low-brow, and it can come across as being extremely offensive and not cool. Too sensitive, however, and the humor can lose something.

And as for that? Well, Will Reiser's screenplay hits all the right notes. It manages to have a blend of comedy that somehow works despite the incredibly touchy subject matter. It's funny, side-splittingly hilarious at a lot of points, but it's never in a way that crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. And when it needs to be serious, the humor wisely backs off, and surprisingly, this movie proves that it's not a jarring tonal shift if you nearly engage in a 'this is sad' cry in a comedy. So it manages to be both hilarious and heartwarming at the same time.

And the fact that it has a bunch of really good actors here also helps a lot. The comic timing of everyone is great here, and when they need to be serious they manage to bring a lot of great things to the table. Everyone is great in this movie, especially the lead actors, and especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Seth Rogen as the two leads. They also help in keeping the tone of the movie consistent, even when it juggles comedy and drama at the flick of a switch.

So to sum it up? 50/50 is a movie about a very, very serious subject that manages to treat it in both a humorous way and a really serious way. It's got a charming cast, a really tight screenplay, and it works really well as a whole. So go check it out.

3.5/4

Most definitely worth checking out.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

Cloud Cuckoolander Treatise: Let's Iron Out Some Plot Holes!

Warning: This Cuckoolander Treatise will contain spoilers for Abduction, and a major spoiler for Hanna. Reader discretion is advised, though I really don’t know why you’d take such a warning seriously in relation to a movie that makes no flippin’ sense. (I can see why you’d take it seriously for Hanna, though.)

So those of you who were with me last weekend to review the nonsensical shitfest that was Taylor Lautner’s Abduction will probably remember I lambasted the story for making no sense. Well, I thought to myself, “well, Herr, can you do any better to make this story make sense?”

Well, let’s see, shall we?

I propose a few solutions to make that shitty movie actually make some amount of sense:

1) Ditch a huge part of the reason why Nathan has adoptive parents in the first place.

As I mentioned in my review, the real father of Taylor Lautner’s character was still alive and well during the events of the movie. The reason Nathan was given to adoptive parents, then? It basically whittles down to this: “BOO HOO I CAN’T RAISE A CHILD MY WIFE’S DEATH LEFT ME SO EMOTIONALLY FRAGILE I CAN’T RAISE A CHILD BY MYSELF AND I HAVE NO MORALS THEREFORE I AUTOMATICALLY MAKE AN AWFUL PARENT AND I’M NOT EVEN GONNA TRY TO RAISE THIS KID!” So he was given to some of his friends from the CIA, and stuff evolved from there.

Bullshit, movie. The father just comes across as a whiny little bastard who shouldn’t even be in the CIA, let alone in a higher government job.

Therefore, here is what I propose: I propose you just kill the father off. Completely. Therefore, the fact that Nathan’s parents aren’t actually his parents makes sense. It’s not like you already killed off his mother; one extra victim would actually benefit this movie. Well, that, and it actually makes it more plausible why they would gun after the kid.

Which leads me to suggestion 2…

2) Give the bad guys an actual reason to go after Nathan and Nathan only.

Again, as I said in the review, the Slavic guy is after Nathan for a list that isn’t actually in his possession at the start of the movie. In fact, he doesn’t get the list until after the bad guys gunned for him. You could argue it’s part of a gambit, but you could also… you know… go after the CIA yourselves?

Therefore, here is what I propose to that: have Nathan start the movie with the list somehow. It could be interlaced in a family memento, it could be in a chip inside one of Nathan’s most prized possessions, anything. Anything that makes more sense than getting a list from an apartment that isn’t even in the same state as Nathan’s state of residence.

Speaking of chips, actually…

3) Put the list on a format that actually makes sense in relation to the timeline.

I really doubt they had flip phones in the mid-90’s, which was when the father supposedly got his list. So unless he updated it to a new format every few years (which makes even less sense than before), then there’s no reason it should be on a flip phone.

But assuming that he updated the format, that only opens up another plot hole:

Why didn’t Nathan’s father just give the list directly to the CIA?

Oh, wait, we wouldn’t have a movie that way, that’s why. And you know, it’s bad when your bad guys are chasing your good guys for a reason that opens up a plot hole by default.

My proposition, therefore?

4) Explain why the father didn’t just give the list to the CIA, and thus avoid a case of We Could Have Avoided All This.

You can also completely ditch the list angle, but I’ve got a feeling you don’t want to hear that, so I have to go with everything else. So, you know, give a reason why the father couldn’t just give the list to the CIA. That would go over much better.

That’s all the stuff about the list. Trust me, we’re only halfway done. So let’s get to it.

5) Find a more practical way to kill the mother.

There are more practical ways of killing the mother than just gassing the whole room. Oh yeah, and it also results in less stupid when baby Taylor Lautner picks up a breathing mask, somehow knows what it does, and lives, despite the fact that, you know, he’s still a freaking baby!

6) Find another excuse to involve Nathan in addition to the list.

(Seriously, I just can’t get over the fact that the bad guys are chasing Taylor Lautner for a fucking list that they can get just as easily if they gun for the still-alive father.)

Like, you know, make him a super-secret experiment baby who has enhanced abilities or something. (Funny, when you consider that this is why I originally thought they were gunning for Lautner’s character.) You know, the kind of thing that someone would actually want to get their hands on.

Hey, it worked for Hanna, I’m sure it’ll work just as well here.

7) Keep track of where your movie is, and how long it takes to get there.

Seriously, how the hell did that one dude from The Great Debaters get all the way from Pennsylvania to Virginia with a bunch of fake ID’s in a few hours? I thought making stuff like fake IDs was supposed to take a lot of time, so how does it happen in a few hours? How, movie? How?

8) Have more competent CIA agents, and only slightly less competent Slavic guys.

You mean to tell me that the CIA goes almost the entire running time of the movie without somehow noticing that every single interaction they’ve had with Taylor Lautner’s character over the phone is being tapped by the Slavic guys? Come on, people! The CIA can’t possibly be that stupid!

And lastly…

9) Change the flippin’ title!

Seriously. The title doesn’t relate to the movie at all when you think about it. It really doesn’t.

So yeah, there are a whole bunch of plot suggestions to work with. The one thing I’ll tell you not to do?

10) Do not take out the romance subplot.

Seriously, the romantic subplot of the movie was literally the only thing I enjoyed about it.

And it’s sad when the romantic subplot is the best part of a really twisty action-thriller with complicated plot and all that. It really is.

"Abduction"

Here's a little thing I'd like to say to movie screen-writers. We like twisty, complicated plots. We like them in action movies. And we like them as an excuse to watch crazy things happen.

But please, please, for the love of God don't insult our intelligences while doing so.

Seriously, today's movie is a prime example of why you shouldn't treat your audience like a bunch of idiots.

Oh, and for the record, this review WILL contain spoilers. You have been warned about that, and the fact that I really don't care if I give them away for this particular movie. So if you saw this movie and got spoiled, you can't say I didn't warn you about spoilers.

So yeah.

Abduction

Nathan (Taylor Lautner) is a young man in high school going around doing what he does. However, on a project he does with classmate Karen (Lily Collins), he finds out that his picture just happens to be on a missing person's website. And soon after that, things go downhill, and Nathan is then pursued by both the CIA headed by... Alfred Molina (I can't remember the character's name, nor do I really care), and... some Slavic dude, I don't know.

See? I've forgotten details about the movie already. Not a good sign, people. Let's get this review out of the way before I forget more details.

So, action? Yes, the action here is exciting, we can actually see what the hell is going on... but there isn't as much as there should be. Mindless diversions like this are supposed to be just that: mindless diversions, and we don't really get inclined to care so long as we get action. But there isn't really as much action as you'd hope for in this movie. Instead, it concerns itself with a very twisty plot.

And you know, I wouldn't mind, except for the fact that this movie's plot makes no sense. At all. (Warning: here be spoilers.) Basically, Taylor Lautner's character is being chased around because he has information about stuff that the Slavic guy wants back... except that he doesn't actually start the movie with this information. In fact, he doesn't get this information until after some dudes come into his house, kill the people who are supposedly his parents, and then gets directed to an apartment in which he just so happens to pick up a cell phone that has that information, and just so happens to take it with him. And get this: the missing persons website was a front from the Slavic guy, specifically made to get Nathan so he can get that information. It's a fine plan, until the revelation is made that Nathan's real father is still alive, and extremely well. So why the hell did the bad guys sit and wait for fifteen years for the kid to find the site when they could've just concentrated on finding the father? That makes no sense! There are numerous other plotholes and unexplained plot conveniences peppered around, but when your entire premise makes no sense, you're in trouble.

It doesn't help that nothing is believable about the action or the acting. The guys that attack Nathan's house in the beginning are spending all there time trying to find Nathan, and then trying to kill his "adopted" parents. So when the hell did they find time to stick a time bomb into the oven? That's one thing in a series of missteps in all the action scenes which make the action extremely difficult to believe. And the acting? Forget the acting: the script is so bland (and laughable at a couple of points) that none of the actors can save it. Seriously, you're in trouble when Sigourney Weaver can't save your movie.

So all around? Stay the hell away from Abduction. The acting is stilted, in some cases horrible, and in even more cases laughable, the plot makes no sense, and the action is basically all an excuse for Taylor Lautner to show his stuff as an action hero. Whatever. I want my nine dollars back.

And for the record, I still don't know what the hell the title has to do with the movie, because nobody gets abducted. Ever.

0.5/4

Do NOT see this movie at any cost.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.

"Drive"

Well... at around this time last year, we actually had an existentialist thriller about some dude living life who has a really dangerous side of him that constantly threatened him. Oh, and he had a lot of ties to crime. So wouldn't you know, they decide to release a movie with similar subject matter this year, at around the same time.

To be honest, though, today's movie couldn't possibly be any more different from the other one.

Drive

The driver (Ryan Gosling) (Yes, he remains unnamed throughout the movie, but it really doesn't matter.) is a mysterious man who has no real connections to anything. He does stunt driving, he works at a car shop, and he provides getaway rides by night. He then meets his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan), but then gets pulled into a huge web of conspiracy surrounding her kinda sorta husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) and a crime boss that throws everything into disarray.

So... let's get started with the details? The details? Well, we have a crime thriller here. Oh, but not just any crime thriller: an existentialist crime thriller, with a rather large cast of characters and a hero who doesn't really say all that much but does a lot. You'd think such a movie would have a tough time getting its tone straight.

And yet, this doesn't happen. Ever. And the movie is all the better for it. And I think it comes down to the lead role.

The whole thing is tied together by an incredible performance from Ryan Gosling. His character says fewer than twenty sentences total throughout the entire running time of the movie, but in a way every single sentence counts. And it works perfectly towards the movie's advantage, as the driver is supposed to be isolated from pretty much everything. However, it's tantamount that we see the driver's expressions, and on this Gosling brings a huge amount of subtlety to the character. And later in the movie, it helps when he gets much more involved than someone who was so isolated from the world before: with any other actor in the role, it would have seemed nonsensical, but with the subtlety that Gosling brings to every interaction with the other characters it makes perfect sense.

And the whole thing comes together from there, but everyone else brings their all to it, too. Director Nicolas Winding Refn brings a visual style to the thing that seems to highlight the film's neo-noir tendencies. All the supporting actors bring their work to the table, and they all have a certain magnetism with Gosling that works to the movie's advantage. And the action is extremely tense. While there isn't a lot of it and what there is tends to be short, what there is extremely exciting.

So... what to say? Drive is one of the best movies of the year, no contest. And the whole thing comes together thanks to Ryan Gosling. Seriously, people. Don't miss out on Drive. You will not regret seeing it.

4/4

A must-see picture of the year.

This is Herr Wozzeck Reviews. I'll see you guys next time.