Truth On Cinema

We at Truth On Cinema thought it would be good to give you a little insight into how we rate films and what the number ratings mean:

0- Complete waste of time and money. Only reason to buy a ticket or a DVD of this is to burn it so no one else can see it.
1- This movie flat out shouldn’t have been made, but since it’s here, we’ll have to deal with it for a week or two before it leaves theaters.
2- If you can enjoy bad movies, this one might be worth a risk. But bring a lot of candy and some sarcastic friends.
3- Maybe someday this will be a best-seller as a Mystery Science Theater 3000 special. It’s tolerable enough to mock through its entirety.
4- Maybe it’s worth it if you’re really into this sort of thing. Probably not. But Io hear the DVD makes a great $10 coaster.
5- Meh. See it. Don’t see it. It’s a movie. It exists.
6- If you like the genre, see it. If you need something to do, see it. If someone else buys your ticket, definitely see it. If not, Redbox might be ok.
7- Probably worth a once-over in theaters, maybe not worth owning. Rent it if you’re patient, see it if you aren’t.
8- Definitely worth the trip to theaters. Even worth full price if you can’t do a matinee. It’s fun and a little bit fresh and creative.
9- You want to see this before it’s out of theaters and yo will probably own it on DVD. Maybe you’ll even go back to see it again.
10- Your life is not complete without this film. It’s incredibly original and the moment it’s over you NEED to see it again. You might pick up an extra shift at work to pay for more movie tickets.

I really enjoyed October Sky (the book and the movie). It was a film set in a time where kids could run around doing whatever they wanted, engaging their own creativity as they went. The world was their oyster and whatever they wanted to do or see, they created it. That is what Super 8 is to me: a world where cinematic wonder is captured through the eyes of kids. I wonder what life would be like if kids did that now, instead of playing with iPhones? I also wonder why I’m already griping about “kids these days” at the age of 20. Then I remember that I just watched a film about kids making a high-quality movie—about zombies no less—in the year 1979. Also, there was a massive alien. I don’t know why.

In all honesty, this movie would have worked without a government conspiracy and a 30-foot alien creature that resembles a Machamp crossbred with a Venus flytrap. In fact, it just made it better. As “scary” movies go, this one won’t terrify you. You might jump a few times or get a little nervous, but you won’t find yourself checking dark corners for monsters. I personally like that. I don’t understand why people want to see movies that make us even more terrified than we already naturally are. Isn’t the condition of the world enough? We’re two paragraphs into the review and I’ve already gone on two morality rants. Apologies. Back to the film.

Child actors are sometimes a bust or sometimes pure gold, and I think everyone of these kids was solid. Their voices might squeak a little and they might overact, but really nothing sets off the “obnoxious” bell here. These kids have chemistry that works on screen, and they are written to be quirky and lovable yet totally believable, which is both impressive and endearing. The adults in the film are almost completely ancillary, and the film is as much a story about the joy, innocence, and energy of youth as a story like this can be. Side note: why is Noah Emmerich always a crazy person bent on one thing? And why does he keep showing up in random places all over my television?

I guess it’s time to talk about the 800lb. monster in the room. It seems appropriate, because you really don’t see the thing until the last quarter of the movie. Some people complain about this, I think it’s a nice touch. The Super 8 alien reads as a great metaphor for our human fear of the unknown. We fear what we don’t understand and we sometimes overreact to the fear without gathering information first. I don’t want to ruin the little twists and turns—nothing major, but a few enjoyable little details—so we’ll leave it at this: Super 8 is a beautiful intertwining of several complex stories. You can either wade in the good, old-fashioned monster-movieness of it or you can dive in and explore the time and effort that was put into crafting this little town and its cast of characters (Super 8 did come with its own viral campaign, which is less necessary to follow than Cloverfield’s for full enjoyment, but rumor is that it helps). Also, stick around to watch the kid’s finished zombie movie during the credits. It may be the best part of the film.

For a potent and possibly dangerous combination of nostalgia and the power of mystique, I give Super 8 a (super) 8 out of 10.

Review Written By: Steven Jones

If I told you that there was a film about a super hero whose power was a glowing piece of bling and whose sworn duty was to protect the universe from a sentient cloud of fear-induced space diarrhea, you might think that movie would be pretty awful. But Green Lantern shines through despite its relatively low selling points. For a movie about a hero that only die-hard fans really care about, I expect this one to go over pretty well.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is not the most dynamic character in history. He’s your cookie-cutter skilled-military-guy-with-a-shattered-past-and-his-hands-on-some-sweet-new-tricks. (Check the archives; I think that’s my record for most words connected by a hyphen.) At any rate, Jordan is not the most compelling story. There’s no real redemption and he’s not quite the same level of snarky as Tony Stark. But Reynolds, who I’ve always liked, does an admirable job of making us care about him. From the film’s triumphant opening dogfight against the military’s new AI super jets to the intense training on the Green Lantern Corps’ homeworld of Oa (yes, non-nerds, there is an entire Corps of Green Lanterns), we get to see Hal trade clever enough dialogue and do interesting enough things. But the film misses out on chances to shine.

Why is the idea of humans being replaced by machines, although clichéd, not explored? Why does the training sequence on Oa only last about ten minutes, long enough for one flying sequence and a few quick skirmishes between Lanterns? And why did we throw away Hector Hammond’s (Peter Sarsgaard, who I wish we’d seen do more) potential to be anything other than a bridge from training to fighting space-diarrhea? Ok, let me clarify this now: The central villain, Parallax (holding back an ex-lax joke), is a being that absorbs and sustains itself on fear. You’d think they’d have taken some of the CG budget away from changing Reynolds’ eye color and projecting a suit onto him and made their villain look a little less like… alright, I’m done with low-brow comedy. Does anyone wonder why a villain whose sole power is to devour you once you’re afraid of him is actually scary? It’s like a defeated paradox… he can only eat you if you’re scared and you really shouldn’t be scared if you know that.

Let me spend the last paragraph of this review stitching together all the pieces I just tore apart. Green Lantern is solid. Not great, but solid. The idea of a guy who can create anything he can see in his mind and sustain it with sheer will power is pretty sweet. For those of us who knock GL for not really having a super-power, let me just throw this out there: what is Harry Potter without a wand? Not much. Why do we love the world of Harry Potter? Because it’s fantastic enough to dare us to dream and separated from us by barely anything at all. Given the choice right now, I’d love to carry a Green Lantern ring. There are a lot of moments where we are just in awe of the creativity on display visually in the film, and the action is top-notch. Fans of the series will also get a little reward if they stick around long enough into the credits (don’t bother staying all the way to the end though).

Overall, for shining some creative light on an otherwise bland plot, I give Green Lantern a 7 out of 10

Review Written by: Steven Jones

The rule of thumb is that sequels are never as good as the original. I don’t care what you say, Night at the Museum 2 was not as good as the first, nor was Jurassic Park II. And I’ll go ahead and jump into a boiling pot with this one: Empire Strikes Back was definitely not the best Star Wars film. Regardless of how you feel about that one, the point still stands: sequels aren’t as good…Except for Kung Fu Panda 2, which will knock that point on its butt and require some new thumbs to go with the rules.

We pick up not too far from where we left Po and the Furious Five and are treated to our first glimpse of them working together as a powerhouse team now that Po has fully embraced his role as the Dragon Warrior. It sounds silly, but the fights are wonderfully choreographed and stretch the limits of the imagination. At one point, Viper constricts an enemy and controls him like a puppet. That’s cool. And cool is something this movie uses with great relish and to great effect.

Kung Fu Panda is not about being cool. If it was, it wouldn’t be about an overweight Panda martial artist who clearly feels no shame and isn’t bright enough to figure out that a duck is not his real father. But there’s enough cool mixed in to keep us from shutting down all but our humor detectors. It blends marvelously with the offbeat humor that Kung Fu Panda has always harnessed well and a new element of drama and plot that we honestly never saw coming. The characters are deep and rich; we explore Po’s past and touch on Tigress’s issues. We see the “inner peace” of Master Shifu as he finally recovers from the events of the first film. And some of these moments are heavy. Almost too heavy for an animated film. But they are immediately followed by Po trying to do something he simply cannot do and we forget the pain and laugh once more.

It’s been about a year since an animated film made me want to both laugh and cry within the same stretch of time, but Kung Fu Panda 2 did it. There’s something for everyone here: comedy, kung fu, a few little historical moments of zen, and the kind of character development that is frankly lacking from movies nowadays.

For mastering the Art of Awesome, I give Kung Fu Panda 2 a 9 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

Is there anyone in America who did not lower their expectations for this film as soon as it was released? Or at least as soon as mermaids were so prevalent in the trailers? You four people are in for some disappointment. But honestly, after Pirates of the Caribbean: Save Us, Giant Crab Lady (also known as At World’s End), I’m not sure there was really that much room to get worse. And On Stranger Tides does a manageable job of at least staying on course.

If you ever found yourself thinking “wow, Pirates is a bit dark for a Disney flick…” then this installment of the franchise will do wonders for you. Everyone seems to have cleaned up: even Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp continues to rock this roll) seems less edgy and cuddlier—a word which spell check both assures and insists is a word. Barbosa is now a privateer, something history nerds like me will enjoy, and let’s face it; Blackbeard is no Davey Jones. And why is there a random—but thankfully sincere and less stereotypical—missionary on the ship? This franchise is starting to feel like it has been strapped to a cannon and thrown overboard. But it’s still got a little bit of air in its lungs.

The Captain begins his journey in London, where he makes yet another daringly lucky escape from British custody only to discover that his name is being used by another pirate to gather a crew. Several necessary motivations and cameos later, we find Captain Jack on the Queen Anne’s Revenge with Penelope Cruz, being chased by the competing Spanish and British factions. Somewhere along the line, the project must have passed hands from a storyteller to a fan of stories. The build-up of Blackbeard and his mythology is lackluster, especially in comparison to the complexity of the previous films, but there has been painstaking effort to make this film fit into the scope of history, making statements about modernization in a manner similar to the third installment.

Also, there are mermaids and the fountain of youth. Apparently they are interrelated. Mostly they serve as glue to bind all of the gimmicks together. This film is by no means bad. It’s an interesting enough story, but lacks the excitement and originality of the previous three films, of which the first remains the stand-out. It’s a fun little voyage, but it’s more like a wholesome family cruise than the epic journey we’d like.

For enjoyable knitting together more excuses to take our money (and setting up yet more sequels), I give Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides a 7 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

Marvel seems to be slowly introducing us to the heroes we never knew. They started us out with Iron Man, Marvel’s King of Cool. Then they followed up with the Hulk, a classic we had sought to forget after a disastrous 2003 effort to revive him that was fortunately atoned for in 2008. With Captain America on the way, it seems that we will be seeing each Avenger alone before we get to see them all together. Good luck making money on Ant Man and Wasp (Hawkeye makes an uncredited appearance in Thor, but only geeks and imdb-users would notice or care). In all actuality, I feel like Thor represents the line at which the average American can be made to care.

I’m a fan of rebooting old myths. I think it can be done well (see Gaiman’s American Gods). But a comic book adaption of an old Norse myth makes me skeptical. If you’re in the boat with me, let me encourage you to climb out and pillage your local movie theater. Because Thor is worth the trip. I won’t lie to you and say that it’s incredibly clever or unpredictable: it’s a superhero movie. Those tend to be pretty by-the book. It lacks the wit of Iron Man and doesn’t quite reach the narrative value of Hulk, but it’s far from a waste of two hours.

Thor is your typical hero. He has a lot of power, which is important because it helps him hold up his giant ego. He can fly and summon lightning and he carries the mythical Mjolnir (shout out to HALO fans who now understand the moniker of Master Chief’s armor): an incredibly heavy but relatively unimpressively-looking hammer that can pull off boomerang-like maneuvers and summon lightning. I now have to point out the difference between Thunder and Lightning and wonder why they seem to be synonymous in pop culture. I blame Pokemon.

I know this review seems harsh. Mostly that’s because it’s easier to be funny if you’re being a bit mean. In all honesty, Thor has its moments. Every actor and actress pulls their weight, there are several scenes that are breath-taking to behold (shout out to people who aren’t yet sick of 3D), and comic-book fans are sure to enjoy the incredible effort at referencing everything the Marvel universe has to offer.

So, for bringing the Thunder but not the Rain, I give Thor a 6 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones

In a summer full of worn-out franchise films, superhero flicks and sequels, Source Code is the equivalent of finding fish amidst the beef and chicken in your fridge. It can be quite refreshing. If you’re into that sort of thing. It is most certainly an acquired taste.

Source Code mixes things up in a pleasant way. It follows your standard Sci-Fi Time Crime format: helicopter pilot Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal; probably the only name you’ll recognize) is inserted into the mysterious titular “source code,” a program that allows users to relive an eight minute window in the memory of a specific subject. The film does a good job of explaining the concept without overdoing it: convincing us that this is viable but not requiring us to work through every piece of theory involved. It deviates from the formula, however, in constantly reminding us that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to change the course of events depicted. For some reason, Stevens can do things differently every time in. I suppose small holes in theory are preferable to watching the same eight minute scene fifteen times.

If this movie has a flaw, that’s the main one. The acting is passable rather than phenomenal but doesn’t really get in the way. The only real problem is that we have to endure the classic “this is going to happen every time” intro sequence every time Stevens is reinserted into the Source Code. It feels a bit cliche to watch him say and do the same few things every time, but the sequence is blessedly short and seems to be creatively cut every time. The real magic, however works in what we will call the “Present.”

As the film progresses, we see more and more of the mysterious Beleaguered Castle organization and their operation as Stevens interacts with them. These scenes are wonderfully cut: driving us into the confusion Stevens experiences as a result of the Source Code but guiding us through his startling revelations as he discovers more and more of the truth. It might not be the most original, but it carries enough fresh ideas and solid thought to keep the audience engaged. It’s short, sweet, and just cool enough. It’s a shame it flew under the radar so long, but it seems Gyllenhaal is cursed with Secret Awesomeness (see Prince of Persia).

For breaking some fresh ground in an old field, I give Source Code an 8.5 out of 10.

Written by: Steven Jones