Movie Review: "Paddington" a must see family film, now let me digress and bash Hollywood for a moment...

One of the best movies I have seen in a long time came to me as a surprise because the previews made it seem like just another movie pandering to kids to get them to nag their parents to go see another fictional children's character come to life so the big studios could cash in on our kids, using them as agents of extortion to buy movie candy and toy merchandise.

I guess I've just become more cynical of the blockbuster Hollywood money machine.  I wonder why.  I wish Hollywood would aspire to make more films like "Paddington"...

I really admire the craft and creativity for producing so many special movies for the ages, yet I find so many in Hollywood are so undeserving of such public idolatry, especially when they say things... off script.  After all, don't they read lines, recite and repeat for a living?  Acting and making movies is hard work, yes, but so is construction and thousands of other jobs.  Like being a Navy Seal or an Airborne Ranger.  You see where I'm going with this?  I think it's great they and professional athletes make so much money and our society rewards their efforts and products through our free market system  That system our men and women in uniform serve to protect.

In case these Hollywood actors, directors and producers were wondering how they got so rich, it's call capitalism, and whether they want to admit it or not, they are capitalists.  Very successful ones at that.

I guess I'm growing tired of the fat Michael Moore / Seth Rogen types who open their mouths and say things like American Sniper Chris Kyle was a coward and watch as their benign and American-hating opinions spread across the webosphere like so much misinformed stupidity spreads like mold spores online.  Thankfully, the news their remarks generate usually not only extinguish themselves, crushed by the content's own futile idiocy, they usually receive more backlash from the public, leaving these geniuses baffled at how stupid we Americans must be to not see things from their privileged, skewed, perverted, and narrow point of view.

These same Hollywood "limousine liberals" who bash big business, Republicans and the Koch brothers don't seem to notice the hypocrisy of them earning $10 million for a few month's of "work."  These are a strange lot of conflicted souls, indeed, many of these Hollywood actors.  At least the ones who criticize corporations and espouse their narrow-minded views on politics and social issues based on the glossy Cosmopolitan headlines someone from their entourage recites to them as sources of their naive and generalized information.

All I can say is God bless Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper, they may not have intended to, but American Sniper's success came partially from them wielding the power of Hollywood against itself, much like Hollywood uses our free market capitalist system against us.  Hollywood could really use some retrospective and look itself in the mirror and admit they're a money-making business.

I can't help but admire most people who work hard for a living doing real jobs than those who claim to be working by pretending to be somebody else while in front of a recording contraption called a camera.

Wow, so this started out as a "Paddington" review, how easily I can digress when it's on my own review blog!  I can't say enough good things about this movie.

I know what you're thinking if you've read this far -- where is this guy going?!  It doesn't matter, hardly anyone reads my movie reviews peppered with my Libertarian politics anyway.

Back to "Paddington"....

Director Paul King is a master.  Every camera angle and composite shot of Paddington placed in post production in his every deserving scene is worthy of praise.  The cast is exceptional throughout.  The acting is perfect.  The little playful touches of the street side Jazz band accentuating the mood throughout is fun.  The little visual touches and lighting are perfect in every scene.

This is a movie any budding movie maker should buy, just to study the scenes, the cuts, the camera motion, the lighting, and the pace.  Paddington is full of charm and humanity without being sappy.  In many scenes, it's sometimes sweet and sarcastic at the same time.

I really think it was so well produced, so well written, that it is deserving of the best film of the year.  The special effects were so seamless, Paddington, 3D generated throughout the movie, moves effortlessly and naturally across the screen.  It's amazing only a few years after Harry Potter and Avatar how much better and realistic these 3D special effects have become.

Emma Thompson had a part in writing it, as there is a noticeable touch of the charm a la Nanny McPhee with the kids.  Hugh Bonneville, from Downton Abbey fame, is perfect in the role as the overly protective patriarch, and Sally Hawkins is the perfectly quirky wife with the big heart.

Go see Paddington with  your kids, and if you don't have kids, go see Paddington.

-  Aaron Belchamber

Show Review: "House of Cards" on Netflix a "Must See" If You Can Tolererate Headline-Paralleling Government Corruption Dramas (HPGCD)

That's right, we're starting a new genre with Netflix introducing Kevin Spacey in "House of Cards".    Headline-Paralleling Government Corruption Dramas (HPGCD).  He and Robin Wright are excellent as the calculating and ruthless politically ambitious couple a la Clintons.  The only difference is their names are Frank and Claire Underwood.  As a matter of fact, I believe after looking back to season two that there are more similarities of "House of Cards" to the Clintons than many who put the Clintons on a pedestal believe, but that's for the political pundits and not a reviewer of things.

Headline Paralleling

Indeed, looking back through headlines and political theater of the Clintons and other politicians, I wonder if the Underwoods aren't a composite of the Clintons and the Kennedys -- both left a destruction of lives and sometimes even murder (Ted Kennedy) and rape (Clinton), behind them in their wake of rising to the top.  "House of Cards" captures this effect very evenhandedly and present it almost as a natural reality and reaction as the political exploit, use, then discard people and whole organizations for the expediency of accomplishing their own ends. Ingredients to political success like barley, hops and water is to making beer -- it just can't be made any other way and work.

Lies, broken promises, set ups, blackmail, pushing people to suicide, murders, extortion.  Just another day in Washington (Democrat or Republican).  It's all happened and these stories are lurking in the shadows of some very prominent politicians from Kennedy, through Bush, and all the way to Obama.  Way before our modern day politicians, political intrigue almost seems as commonplace as the very corruption of government on display everyday.  It's just a part of our history.  The men in power get there almost by very questionable means.  It's funny and scary how we public have tolerated this.  We hear a lot of, let's say BS coming out of the mouths of politicians everyday and we, the public, know and can hear the disingenuous politicians preach values and morality when we all know many of them are the worst offenders.  As if hypocrisy and a large helping of condescension along with a superiority complex are the other ingredients to political success.  Without these ingredients, we don't get those effective bubbles in our beer.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that every major event that unfolds (or one would argue Kevin Spacey's character forces through his own acts and ability to manipulate people) in House of Cards parallel past headlines related to the politically elite.  Someone's chief of staff was probably found dead with his head battered in and another rape victim who was propped up for media points probably turned into a drug-induced zombie.

The Truth is Sometimes Hard to Swallow 

Besides the disturbing realities that happen behind closed doors, the sets that portray the White House are very convincing.  The actor who plays the incumbent President seems to grow in power and being a convincing president as Season Two unfolds.  Kevin Spacey as Frank Underwood is so good, though.  At times, he breaks the scene and deadpans into the camera and speaks his deepest thoughts to us, the audience.  A la "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", which also used this device to engage the audience, Kevin Spacey takes his darkness and includes the audience in on sharing his philosophy of life, which is often logical but as warped as many of the politicians who unfortunately have been, and will continue to get elected.  Sometimes, he's self critical and there's a glint of shame in his actions, but it takes strength to overlook ones' weaknesses and vices as long as the ends are justified.

As a political soap opera,  House of Cards is excellent, there are some shifting-in-time moments where what would take years of bureaucratic red tape typical of the federal leviathan only takes an episode.  I am so thankful our beloved potential felons in Washington can't move as swiftly, usually, it's a reminder why we need a limited government.  No matter how you feel politically, no one can dispute the fact our government is probably even more corrupt and morally bankrupt than this show portrays Washington.  It's a reminder to us all that we need a limited government if for nothing else to limit the cancerous corruption that will probably always be part of the federal government.

The fact that Frank Underwood is a Democrat and Hollywood is so liberal makes me wonder, even hope, that even liberals see this reality.  After watching this show, I'm not more cynical than I was towards government, and I know it's just "fiction" -- you decide if many episodes don't parallel our reality.  Some episodes are a bit unbelievable and contrived, but Kevin Spacey makes this show work so well.

"House of Cards" is different, it's unapologetically honest, it's brutal in its portrayal of mostly Democrats in office, and it's creepy because you know it happens, that people are this calculating and ruthless, and the worst part -- a majority are morally corrupt and are beholden to granting favors at us tax payers' expense. They are in Washington to stay in power, to ensure we the people serve their self interests.  It's their job to spin this reality to make it look like they're there "working hard for the people."

We're simply pawns in their game of leverage, manipulation, and sometimes just a game to show off their power out of pride.  It's only just a $500 million bridge project, who cares where the money has to come from, I want a Casino in my state.  It's a great country we live in, I recommend watching House of Cards if nothing else to scare you into wanting what's best for our country -- limit government, you limit its stench of corruption.  It's the only way our country will survive in the end else they will take us down to stay on top.  These are people who will turn on themselves, they would eat others' young to stay in power.  Like the audience that knows this is really the way of the political world, we also know this is true.

Movie Review: "The Pact" -- No Stars, but Packs A Punch

"The Pact" is an excellent horror movie written and directed by Nicholas McCarthy.  I'd tell you more back story about him and the actors, but I never heard of any of them until I watched the end credits and realized Casper Van Dien, the guy from that flop of an alien bug movie, appeared minor role as a cop / detective.  In their defense, I'm sure they never heard of me and they've accomplished a heck of a lot more in the movie business and not spending any of their spare time reviewing movies in a blog barely anyone reads.

This movie feels indy, seems like it's an indy, but it's shot and lit like the real thing.  It's a good story, has very good and convincing acting, and excellent lighting/cinematography.  It feels bleak and it's lit with a jaundice discomfort.

By the way, who cares if it IS an indy, anyway?  I'd like to see more movies made completely out of the mainstream, I can't wait for the day someone makes a movie and not a single corporation can touch them so the profits actually go to those who deserve them -- the writers and production company (and the actors, too -- but who needs to stick up for them when they have an awards show every week and gloat about how awesome they are?!)

The Pact's special effects weren't over the top, modest, but convincing.  Not once did I feel like once again I was watching another "almost" totally professional film where it didn't quite make it because the budget was so low the "crew" (the director's two buddies and some guy named Jay whose dad is a doctor so indulges his son with fancy video equipment) had to use an office chair for a camera dolly.  I believe I didn't see any dolly shots in this movie, the camera tilts and pans, but who says every movie needs a sweeping camera shot to immerse the audience?  Apparently, no fancy hollywood camera rigs mattered as the action, suspense, and supernatural action unfolded.  It's seamlessly edited and each moment purposeful.  I have no doubt Nicholas McCarthy knows how to squeeze every last ounce of production value out of his shoots, that's for sure!

If you like a bit of suspense ala Hitchcock with a darker twist, perhaps more "Psycho" and less "Rope", with a bit more gore and actual supernatural interventions, watch it.  It's a good two hour ride!

The creepy twist at the end ties everything neatly together.  I recommend "The Pact" on Netflix, it has tension, suspense, and some mystery -- along with some excellent acting.

Movie Review: "Red Lights" with Sigourney Weaver, Robert De Niro & Cillian Murphy. Save Your Bandwidth.

All three of these stars could not save a very weak story from imploding and falling on its own weight.  Do not bother watching "Red Lights" -- I wish I could have gone back in time and told myself what I'm telling you now.  Cillian Murphy shows he has range as an actor, he's the "Scarecrow" from Batman.  He can play a very sympathetic protagonist, too.  Despite some excellent acting, I found myself trying to figure out how many rewrites this thing went through to limp its way through production and on to distribution.  When De Niro floats in the air on stage and there's a terrible camera shake that's supposed to be an earthquake, I felt sorry for the movie.  I just wanted it to end, for the sake of the actors.... and for me.

Red Lights?  FahGetAboutIt!

Movie Review: "Flight" with Denzel Washington a Total Waste of His Talent

I'm not sure why I watched this entire movie, but did so I could write about it, I guess.  In "Flight" (2012), Denzel Washington plays a rake of an airline pilot who has more vices than a plane full of people have virtues.  Having seen the preview, I thought it would be interesting, especially in the wake of the real-life airline heroics by the fearless captain of a flight in real life by Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger, III.

Something you need to know:  Denzel's character, and the entire movie have nothing in common with Captain Sully.  That much is very, very clear. Oh, I wish it was...

Was there a purpose to this story?  Possibly, but to get to final minutes where (spoiler alert) the main character finally stands for something besides his own selfish interests, you are dragged through enough painful and awkward moments of his waning life all rolled into one tragic, selfish, misguided alcoholic.  He probably also contracted AIDS from the heroine-addicted girlfriend he met, but the writers probably just forgot to add that out of sheer clutter of the screenplay. 

I can hear all the Hollywood writers sitting around the table, working on the redraft before the execs would approve production:  "Let's make Denzel's character one unsaviory dude where nothing goes right for him -- American audiences want to see people worse off than them in these hard economic times."

Despite all his shortcomings, Denzel still manages to snort cocaine on screen while drunk and beseech his few friends with not-so-surprising self-destructive behavior.  You hope more for the character, I felt sorry for him and have to admit that I felt sorry for Denzel even though he probably made millions acting out such a travesty of human indignity and debauchery.  I added that last word "debauchery" just to round out my disdain of this movie and to hopefully impress upon the viewer that I'm so bored writing this review after being even more bored having watched this movie that I'm throwing out terms from another era that were once used to express my half-hearted outrage.

Don Cheadle, John Goodman, Bruce Greenwood all have one thing in common with Denzel Washington -- they all gave excellent character performances in an aimless movie so void of authenticity it's as if you are watching bad adult behavior before your eyes for the sake of pushing this meandering script to an "R" rating so it would simply have an excuse to have done poorly in the theaters.  "Oh, if it was toned down to PG-13, it would have done better."  This entire movie just seems to be written to reach the very same goal of Denzel's main character:  No where

Are you rooting for vindication or hoping Denzel's main character learns his lesson?  Perhaps, I was just rooting for the end credits to arrive as soon as possible -- like a flight that catches the right tailwind and you arrive 40 minutes earlier to your destination.  Believe me, I was hoping for a tailwind.  I'd suggest passing this up for Disney's "Frozen", even if you don't have kids.

Movie Review: "Planes" Works -- Family Fun Despite Familiar Plot Line

From the maker's of "Cars", Pixar has released "Planes," which are talking planes in the "cars world," as the opening title of the movie explains before the "Planes" title comes to rest in the opening scene.  We took our kids to see it -- it's fast-paced and definitely entertaining enough.  There are plenty of visual stunts and playful banter, but not nearly as much charm or humor as the original "Cars" movie.  Still, like almost anything made by Pixar, the strengths of this movie definitely carries much more weight than its few perceived weaknesses.

Who can ever argue that Pixar doesn't know how to make visually stunning and entertaining movies?  Seldom, if ever have I thought, "that movie was just too long" when it comes to Pixar.  My children would wholeheartedly agree and "Planes" was no exception.

There are a lot of similarities between the first "Cars" movie and "Planes".  You'd think with the millions pored into the production that Disney would focus first more on coming up with more original plots and giving the movie the depth and quality Hollywood's best is capable of providing, but as a story goes it all works.  It just feels like it could have been even better.  So, did they use the same screenplay and insert "plane" where it said "car" from the original "Cars" movie?  Not quite, but at some points in the movie, I thought I had seen some of the same action and dialog before....

Again, it's about racing, this time it's a plane race around the world, and, like Lightning McQueen, the main character is an underdog (by the name of Dusty Crophopper) who befriends an old, washed up  old veteran with a mysterious past who becomes his trainer to help him become a better racer.  Surprisingly, the quality of animation is excellent, of course, but it's hard to believe in the four years since "Cars" that there wasn't much noticeable improvement visually despite the accelerated advancements of technology.  Perhaps the advancements of technology made Pixar produce this movie with less people and more computers, which might be the reason behind its lack of depth and humanity compared to "Cars".  Not that Pixar needs any improvement to the quality of their productions, it just seems like they used the same computers to render the same type of effects from the original "Cars" movie.

The voices lent to the characters come off a little flat compared to other Pixar blockbusters, but that may be due to the fact that not a lot of character development or side stories are developed -- squeezed out probably by all the racing and flying scenes.  Plenty of action, but unlike other Pixars, you really feel like you're watching it all from afar, you aren't as involved in the action like most other Pixar classics where you're more absorbed in the characters so you're less of a sideline audience and more into the characters so you feel more involved.

None of that matters, however.  What does matter is our two young ones were glued the whole time and we all enjoyed it as a family.  Our youngest kept asking when Lightning McQueen and Mater were going to make a cameo.  We were expecting them to.

Movie Review: "The Tall Man" with Jessica Biel a Refreshingly Original Mind-Bender

Two things about movies that make me shut it off or leave -- exploiting children and degrading or violent scenes.  I catch enough national and local news headlines to make me wish most days I didn't have a television -- or radio, for that matter.  For instance, James Marsden was in a movie recently, whose title I won't even name, with a terribly violent rape scene thrown into a pretty interesting thriller -- up to the point a brutal scene ensued.

Violence for the sake of violence in a movie -- there's just no need for that, with all of Hollywood's pool of "best in the world" creative talent, these ploys are cheap and shows a lack of basic creativity in our screenplay writers and Hollywood's leadership in general.  It's insulting to the public to think we wouldn't appreciate higher quality from them -- sometimes, do you have a feeling they just see us all as ticket stubs?  I believe that such a cavalier attitude towards senseless violence and elevating the degradation of all forms of life cloaked in "art" has contributed to lowering many people's sense of respect for others, empathy, and basic human dignity.

In "Shindler's List," the violence is appropriate, especially when placed in the context of the purpose of that movie and the audience's expectations.  There's too much "shock factor" in a lot of TV shows and movies Hollywood churns out, but violence for the sake of showing violence is symptomatic of a much larger problem in today's society.  Hollywood is not to blame, but I sure wish they'd hold themselves to some standards, it would be difficult to argue that it would do damage if they did.  For all their chastising and scolding of the public to benefit certain social agendas they obviously cherish, would their "causes" be better served and paid more attention to if they showed us all more respect?

Anyway, back to the "The Tall Man" with Jessica Biel.  It's not too scary, and though yes, children are put at risk, nothing is what you imagine.  As a matter of fact, the writers of this movie do a great job pulling away just in time before you think "Oh, great, it's just another serial killer plot."  I won't give much away, but the twist, then ANOTHER twist on top makes you wonder throughout the movie. 

I'm not in the movie business, but usually when there's a parade of five different studio logo animations before a movie starts, I wonder.  Then, the opening titles reveal "Produced by..." and lists I believe six different studio names.  The next title reveals this movie was "Co-Produced By...." then lists these same studio names again.  Then, it was also "Produced in cooperation with..." I'm thinking, oh, boy, this movie is a salvage operation, passed along different studios like a hot potato.  It does really look silly when the big Hollywood production houses have to claim their cooperation so prominently in the opening sequence.  Does anyone really care?  I think it looks petty, but what do I know.  The opening titles looked like something I've thrown together in 3D Max in a day.  I thought, oooh, budget constraints.  It just made me wonder some more when I saw that Jessica Biel was one of the co-producers.  Uh oh, did she have to step in and help just to make sure this movie got distributed?

But alas, I gave the movie a chance -- and I'm glad I put my reservations aside!  Jessica Biel put on a great performance as the lead.  I won't go into many details, but there's a part near the end where she explains it all, there's a great sorrow, helplessness, and conflicted sincerity in her delivery.  Overall, Jessica Biel really shows great range in "The Tall Man."

It ties up nicely in the end where it all actually makes sense.  You're rooting for the bad guy, or is he/she the good guy?  Nothing is really what it seems on the surface, even after another dramatic revelation about the town, or Jessica Biel's character is revealed.

I think most will enjoy "The Tall Man" and I recommend it.  I don't know the circumstances behind its production, how well it did in theaters or if it went straight to DVD, but maybe this is the way more movies outside of the mainstream are seeing daylight now.  I hope to see more movies like "The Tall Man" where certain factions in Hollywood are throwing out the typical "shock" playbook and are valuing more potential screenplays based on the merits of originality and creativity.  This will be the new way to get more revenue for a longer period from their investments and by keeping their eye on quality of content, the ticket stubs will follow because these movies will have a much longer shelf life than the movies that follow the same old, predictable Hollywood formula.  Be prepared to be surprised, pleasantly, in "The Tall Man."

- Aaron Belchamber

Movie Review: "We Bought A Zoo" Fun & Heartfelt Family Movie, Matt Damon is Fantastic

I finally got around to see "We Bought A Zoo" starring Matt Damon & Scarlett Johansson.  I like to read movie reviews from sources I trust, because, let's face it, time is valuable.  You don't have enough time in your average lifespan to watch every movie and TV show, so you have to discriminate.  Such an ugly term for so reasonable of a means to manage one's life, isn't it?

"We Bought A Zoo" is not a waste of your time to rent.  It's heartfelt and you can enjoy it with youngsters, even, who will be thrilled to see such likeable characters interact with real, live animals.  I don't believe there's any CG in this film, they don't need any.  Matt Damon is such a likeable protagonist, he lost his wife and is stuck in his life so he takes a chance and moves his family -- his son and daughter, to a small town and buys a house, a house that happened to not have been a zoo, but still kind of is one.  I say kind of, because, as the head of the meagerly-supported zoo's veterinary clinic, Scarlett Johansson puts it, it's the love of animals that keeps her there, if she loved money more or at least a dependable paycheck, she wouldn't be there any longer.  The place is broke and in disrepair, the animals need a savior. 

Strangely, it's not an evil capitalist who's about to bulldoze the zoo down that's a threat.  As goes the  usual, common, boring, nonsensical Hollywood plot that all business endeavors are evil because making money is bad.  No, it's a lack of capital, of investment, of human entrepreneurship that's the problem and an average Joe who can see a profit opportunity that, in the end, can save the zoo and the animals is what is needed -- no eco terrorists are heroes in this film.  A refreshing perspective of the American spirit embodies the movie, if not by accident, the script seems to lead the audience to root for an honest business success story!  Go Hollywood!  Thank you for not ramming down your anti-capitalism agenda down our throats this time.  After all, I'm sure they're hoping to profit from the films they make, aren't they?!  Maybe they're coming around -- making money can be good...

Needless to say, Damon's character has depth and fits the reality of the recession era.  He's not Jason Bourne in this film, he's humble, he's lost, he's -- dare I say, very human.  He struggles with doubt, with renovating his house, the zoo, keeping his family together, and searches for answers.  As he transforms this property where he risked his life savings, he realizes this labor of love, of doing work above his own self, is transforming him, and his family.  There are some great, funny moments then, you are thrown back into the reality of life, in a particularly memorable scene, Damon is fantastic reliving a memory of when he met his wife and the details of that joyous moment, as he shares it with his children at the very café it all happened where he met their mother.  The timing, editing, flashback sequences are very effective and heartfelt, I wanted to cry right along with Matt, who just embraced this scene with such a great delivery of being in the moment again.

An excellent screenplay with plot twists, fun humor, and rich characters, you see a boy and girl grow up, and their father finds peace and a new start in life.  I say rent this movie, watch this with your whole family, especially if you have kids from 5 - 18, you'll be glad you did.  Along with the bowl of popcorn, do keep some napkins nearby (don't make it obvious and bring down tissues), someone is bound to have a good cry. 

After his excellent performance in "True Grit", I'm amazed how easily and comfortable Matt Damon is slipping into very diverse roles.  He doesn't seem to have such a big ego where he can't play the bumbling failure, the frustrated dandy, the silly side kick, along with playing the lead hero who can do no wrong.  In "We Bought A Zoo", the whole cast is great, but Matt Damon does an excellent job kind of playing a little bit of all those personalities and carries this movie in this two hour gem.  Oh yeah, Thomas Hayden Church and Scarlett Johannson's in it too.

Movie Review: "Lawless" Keeps Tension Entire Movie

"Lawless" came out in 2012.  I never heard of it, but it's packed with Hollywood A-Listers.  I'm glad we rented it, even though the pace and tension kept me on edge and made me felt uneasy throughout most of the movie.  So many people out to kill, steal or hurt so many other people. Who can you trust when the law is as lawless as the lawless?!

"Lawless" is a violent Hollywood gangster film starring Tom Hardy, Shia Labeouf, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce.  It is about a family called the Bondurants in 1920's Virginia during the time of Alcohol Prohibition and moonshiners.  The biggest crime wave that ever struck the country was a result of misguided legislation to make alcohol illegal, as if making something illegal would mean people would no longer consume it and live a life of purity.  For those without an interest in our nation's history, think our modern-day government's War on Drugs and the failures, flaws and dangers it has imposed on our society.

"Lawless" brings you quickly into the Bondurant family's inner household, led by Forrest Bondurant, a charismatic, imposing young man, patriarch of the "indestructible" family, a man of few words, played by Tom Hardy.  Shia Lebeouf is the younger brother who seeks independence from the long shadows of his brother as he struggles in the dangerous world of making and selling moonshine in a brutal time where it's every man for himself.

I thought it was Guy Pearce as Charlie Rakes, the psychopathic, corrupt federal lawman that was brought in to "clean up" the area of crime, but I could barely tell.  He was so transformed into this despicable villain, I barely recognized him.  His character could make your skin crawl.  "Lawless" is also an excellent essay on the flaws of "good intentioned" legislation and the perils of careless, one-size fits all laws our country has used to polarize and fracture our society like a cancer these past 100 years.  Like alcohol prohibition, by pushing the drug market underground, it inflates the value of drugs, fosters violence, spreads and incentives corruption, victimizes many innocent bystanders, and exposes people to higher levels of risks as opposed to decriminalizing drugs, regulating, and taxing it.  There's a softer side to the movie, but their rare sparkles in a dark, gloomy, and dangerous world.

There are also some excellent side-stories, a bit of humor, and a lot of violence involving knife attacks and shootouts.  It's not for the weak of heart.  My favorite parts are Tom Hardy's character, Forrest, who seems to permeate a lot of likability paired with a determined, principled, and intimidating exterior.  Forrest Bondurant is the only moonshiner who stands up to the corrupt system and endures many different attempts on his life.  He's insensitive but caring at the same time, a great performance.

My only regret is LaBeouf, who tries a little too hard with his hillbilly accent as he partially narrates different scenes in the movie.  He also brings his ability to be the annoying little brother fully into play to add more tension.  You're pulling for his character, Jack, you only wish he'd get his act together and stop acting so arrogant.

Overall, I'd give "Lawless" 3 stars out of 4.  It does a great job of transporting you back to this "neck of the woods" and those dangerous times.  The tension and nervousness throughout the movie is sustained and the pace changes enough between a bit of romance, violent action, and satisfying character development.  I wish Guy Pearce's creepy character could have gotten a bit more screen time against Tom Hardy.  I hope these guys show up in a movie together again, they're both excellent at transforming into their characters.

It's definitely an 'R' rated movie, but it is a very good production reminiscent of the old gangster movies.  It mercilessly thrusts the audience into the Prohibition & Great Depression Eras and highlights this interesting part of our history and Virginia's part in these tumultuous times.

Movie Review: "Hop" The Movie a fun family flick, but leaps short of a "classic"

I thought it was a great idea, I mean, all those fun Christmas movies out there, why not start producing fun movies that could help us rejoice in Easter and wove itself into our culture as fun, annual Easter traditions?  Christmas has "It's A Wonderful Life", "Christmas Vacation", "Emmett Otter's Jug Band Christmas", "White Christmas, "Miracle on 34th Street", "The Santa Clause", "Elf", and the list goes on.  All top shelf Christmas movies that found their way into millions of families' homes as part of the Christmas festivities to help us get into that Christmas cheer.  Then, there's plenty of second tier, still entertaining, miss it one year, watch it the next, Christmas movies like "Christmas With the Kranks", "How The Grinch Stole Christmas", and "Jingle All the Way".

When will Hollywood start to exploit Easter in pursuit of profit for our own benefit of entertainment?  "Hop" attempts to start this trend in the under-served Easter holiday, realizing that Christmas is already pretty crowded.

"Hop", as an Easter movie, would be a second-tier Easter movie if there were more children Easter-themed movies.  Still entertaining, but not a "must see" classic, it's still fun, albeit about 15 minutes too long.  Another kind of sad fact lurks near the end when the Easter Bunny says goodbye and climbs into a vehicle that reminds you more of Santa's sleigh, and a farewell closely mocking that of Santa's "to all a goodnight" farewell, as if Hollywood screenplay writers couldn't spend the time figuring out something clever and original for the Easter Bunny to say, tearing pages out of Clement C. Moore's classic from over 150 years ago.  A rather sad fact, considering that it took years for Clement C. Moore to even admit that he had written "The Night Before Christmas."

Being a kids movie, you'd expect a few Easter-themed songs, or music, but there was no attempt at Disney-style embellishments.  Still, the movie and story line is entertaining enough.  The 3D animation, mostly composited over live scenes, is excellent.  The 3D characters, bunnies and chickadees are pretty adorable and colorful.  The acting fits the audience -- a little over the top.  James Marsden plays the part of a late twenty-something who'd rather live at home and play video games instead of working.  He embraces the part playfully self-deprecating in his immature state.  There's even an interesting side commentary of the state of the U.S. economy, as he lost his job a year ago because of the recession -- and the company he was working for was "downsizing".  Marsden channels his inner Jim Carrey with his own style of exaggerated facial expressions, physical humor, puns, and playful gags.  Obviously acting often in scenes by himself, you can sometimes tell his eyes aren't exactly meeting the imaginary 3D characters he is supposed to be interacting with.  I'm sure it's hard to do that kind of acting, besides, James had to go and shoot "Enchanted 2", so he probably didn't have a lot of time.

The live action and real actors probably get twice the screen time as the more interesting and entertaining 3D characters, which is this film's biggest fault, considering that the audience is 4 - 12 year olds.  I take that back, it has a bigger fault -- the movie's main antagonist, one of the Senior Easter Bunny's helpers, a plump yellow chick named Carlos, not only wants to supplant the Easter Bunny and take his place, perhaps banish him or something, actually wants to boil him, and James Marsden alive.  A bit too brutal and uncreative, you can have a villain in a children's movie, but a ruthless killer?!

The audience deserved a bit more sympathetic, less evil, and violent plot devices.  After all, Carlos was the Easter Bunny's faithful servant for many years, and suddenly he wants to kill him?  In the end, the movie felt a bit long, and simplistic extremes like Carlos going for the Easter Bunny's jugular seemed like the screenplay writers were just taking the easy way out and phoning in a good 30 minutes of plot, pulling pages out of other movies, seemingly from "Braveheart" or "Casino" so they could get paid and move on to their next project.

In the end, though, I think most kids will enjoy the lovable creatures, the gags, semi-low-brow humor, but I wouldn't recommend it for any kids under 8.  And I really wish for a holiday children's movie, they wouldn't have stooped to simplistic violence to keep the movie going.  Even the Grinch didn't want to kill anyone, and he was the Grinch, for crying out loud.  If only James Marsden and the other co-stars would have said, "this movie has lots of potential, but it's Easter and it's for kids, could we soften some of the 'kill the Easter Bunny' rhetoric and make the antagonist a little less evil and more like the Grinch?"