The Usual Suspects

by Tyler Darke

      Another week, another brilliant film. The Usual Suspects is one of my all time favorite movies. Not only does it star one of my favorite actors (the great Kevin Spacey), but it is also a complex thriller that keeps you on your toes. It is one of those movies that you cannot miss a second of, and why would you want to anyways?

      The cast does a fantastic job of portraying very quirky, individualistic characters. While they are all criminals, they could not be more different personality-wise. Perhaps the most unique of all the characters is Roger "Verbal" Kint, played by Kevin Spacey. From the beginning of the movie, we recognize him as being very different from the rest of the gang. The most obvious reason is his crippled leg that causes him to hobble around. As he is interviewed, he comes across as kind of a weak man, not at all capable of leading organized crime operations...or so we think.

      This film leaves the viewer with a surprise ending that nobody could have anticipated. Whatever you thought you had figured out, you didn't. Whoever you suspected to be Keyser Söze, was wrong. It is an incredible shock that causes you to rethink your analysis of the entire film. For this purpose, the film benefits from multiple viewings; although, as my colleague mentioned in our podcast, the it can never really be enjoyed as much after the first viewing. This said, it at least allows you to see the events of the film with a different perspective, knowing how it ends. Watch it again with someone who hasn't seen it, at least they'll be surprised!

      There are many aspects that contribute to the success of this film, but the true beauty is in the plot, which I would not dare attempt to summarize. So go check it out! You will not be disappointed. 10/10

"Well I believe in God, and the only thing that scares me is Keyser Söze."

       - Roger "Verbal" Kint (Kevin Spacey)

The Usual Suspects

By Harry McPhaul

          The Usual Suspects is my one of my favorite films I have ever seen.  Of course there are films that almost everyone can pretty much agree are the greatest of all time.  Then there are films each person believes are on par with the classics that may not have as many accolades.  The Usual Suspects I believe is an example of this. 

          I especially liked how it was not just about one long heist.  It more about building up Keyser Söze as a warlord who sacrifices anything to maintain is reputation.  Throughout the whole film they show brief stories of Keyser’s rise to power.  This was one aspect I thoroughly enjoyed.

          The effectiveness of the story was only possible because of the outstanding acting.  Each actor seemed incredibly realistic.  Leading the way was Kevin Spacey who gave an Oscar winning performance.  His character (Roger "Verbal" Kint) was a cripple who received much belittlement.  But I had a feeling he was always telling the truth.  We find out some information about the other members of the gang but never really learn about Kint in as much detail.   

          We do not find out the truth about Verbal until the end.  The ending is the best part of film because it leaves you in shock.  The suspense and the action or lack thereof was what made this film one of my favorites.  As a surprise, I would recommend this film. I would give it a 10/10.  Happy Easter.

The Usual Suspects

Who is Keyser Söze?

by Hunter Isham

        Early on in Bryan Singer's 1995 crime film The Usual Suspects, we are introduced to a Hungarian man, nearly burnt to death, in a hospital bed. A federal agent (Breaking Bad's Giancarlo Esposito) struggles with the language barrier, but the near-dead man shouts one thing the agent can recognize: "Keyser Söze." This name hangs over the rest of the film as a con artist, Roger "Verbal" Kint (Kevin Spacey), is interrogated by federal officer Dave Kujan (Chazz Palminteri), who hopes to gain some insight on a criminal mastermind with whom Verbal had been working. Verbal, waiting to post bail, starts the story from the very beginning.
        Five criminals are brought in for a police lineup, the usual suspects for a crime they all claim they didn't commit, including Verbal and apparent formal criminal Dean Keaton (subject of Kujan's investigation). Upon their release, the five decide to team up to rob a ring of corrupt NYPD officers, a job that makes them hot targets, inspiring a little "vacation" in Los Angeles. Before long, they discover they have entangled themselves in the criminal web of mysterious Keyser Söze. A pretzel would make a fine visual representation of this film's plot, as the story begins at the end, loops back around, and eventually catches up to itself, giving the audience a great deal of information along the way. The twists and turns of this tale, be they the story of Keyser Söze or further endangerment of the "Usual Suspects," are what make this film a worthwhile experience, and to reveal anymore of them would greatly diminish its impact. Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie earned his Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay with his work on The Usual Suspects, crafting an engaging crime story that has one of the best endings of just about any film out there.
        Bringing McQuarrie's script to life is the great ensemble cast, especially Kevin Pollack, Stephen Baldwin, Benicio del Toro, Gabriel Byrne (as Keaton), and Spacey as the "Suspects." They each bring an individuality to their roles, never once making them seem as just one face among the others. Byrne in particular does a great job of brining some ambiguity to a character our narrator (Verbal) trusts, while Kujan says we should think far less of him. Palminteri brings a nice amount of assuredness and authority to Kujan, making him a trustworthy character even as we sympathize with the crippled, vulnerable Verbal. Spacey, like McQuarrie, earned his Oscar for Supporting Actor, delivering a wonderful performance as a generally weak criminal who gets swept up with his colleagues, and is apparently the only one left to tell the story.
        Spacey's continuous presence throughout the film is a big reason the aforementioned, fantastic ending works, although the entire film leading up to that moment would not be as successful were it not for Bryan Singer's direction. Singer, now famous for his contribution to the superhero genre with his X-Men films and Superman Returns, makes The Usual Suspects a well-oiled storytelling machine that does not release the audience from its grip until it reaches its conclusion. He keeps the film from becoming muddled, while also not playing down to his audience. This is definitely a film that requires your full attention, or else not only will the end not seem clear, but the story's movement from scene to scene would be vague at best. This is smart entertainment that holds you in the palm of its hand until its ready to let go.
        I may make The Usual Suspects sound like one of the better crime films out there, and it is, but those who (like myself) have seen the film before may agree that it loses perhaps just a bit of its spellbinding power on subsequent viewings. Having said that, knowing how the knotted puzzle pieces of the plot fit together makes revisiting this film an interesting game of trying to stay ahead of the story and its clues as they are revealed. Of course, saying a film is a bit less effective the second time around is no reason to avoid it, as The Usual Suspects is quite thankfully the kind of unusual and excellent film audiences deserve to see more often. 9/10

Crash

by Tyler Darke

      I could honestly talk for days about this movie, after all it is my favorite of all time, but I will do my best to consolidate all of my feelings towards it into a reasonably concise review.

      While this movie was extremely successful on so many levels, the most successful to me is the acting. It was a bold decision to put so many well-known actors into the same movie. It can be difficult to make an ensemble cast like this work. The viewer has to see all of them as their individual characters, rather than their personalities as celebrities. Crash accomplished this beautifully. It's like you have never seen these actors before in your life. They disappear into their roles, drawing the viewer into the story.

     All of the actors gave commanding performances; however, most-notable to me was Michael Peña's performance as Daniel Ruiz, a Hispanic locksmith. I have seen Peña in a number of other films, but he is definitely not as famous and experienced as many of the other actors in Crash. This is why I was so surprised that he became my favorite character in the movie. He does a phenomenal job portraying a strong father with a gentle, loving core. The movie deals with a multitude of racial and social tensions. Peña's character is judged as a thug because of his tattoos and Hispanic heritage. We get to see that this judgment couldn't be further from the truth. He is a hard-working father who loves his daughter more than anything. This bond between him and his daughter was incredibly heart-felt because of their chemistry. The scene in the daughter's bedroom regarding the blanket was my favorite of the entire film. It really displays a beautifully relatable love between father and daughter.

     The incredible performances in Crash would not have been nearly as powerful without the incredible screenplay by Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco. The script was perfectly daring, without becoming inappropriate. It crossed boundaries that may make some uncomfortable in reality; however, it was necessary and key to the film's success. Racial and social conflicts are very real problems in modern society, but may of us do not experience them in our daily lives. Crash provides viewers with the opportunity to experience these conflicts first hand and to realize how detrimental they are to society. The powerful script is what makes the viewer experience conflicts, as opposed to just watching pretend conflicts.

     All of these aspects contribute to the success of Crash and supports its deserving win of the Academy Award for Best Picture. But what makes it my favorite movie? What makes it stand out? The answer to this is personal to my taste in movies. I absolutely love movies with complex plots that use every second to develop the story. There is a fine line, though, between movies that beautifully portray complex plots and movies that are just confusingly complex and impossible to relate to. Crash delivers a very complex plot in an extremely successful way. There are so many intricate storylines that are constantly progressing throughout the film. It leaves the viewer attempting to guess what will happen next, but never being able to. You have to patiently wait for the ending, when everything is brought together, and you're never able to see the word "Crash" the same again. 10/10

"It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."

     - Graham Waters (Don Cheadle) 

Crash

By Harry Mcphaul

Crash was a truly inspiring film.  It depicted racial stereotypes in many different facets.  The overall story was about shedding light on common situation that cause racism.  In it being this way there was no main character who you could easily tell was the protagonist.  Having the many different subplots that were effective would not have been possible with an excellent acting ensemble.

          Most films that have numerous talented actors are normally terrible.  It is often difficult for me to view this people in supporting roles because of the presence they bring to each one of their films.  However, in Crash I did not get the same feeling.  Each story line felt like its own individual movie which helped to deter me from that sense I get that every one of those actors is in a lead role.  Another reason I liked this film was because of the subtly. 

          The film does a great job in showing how people can become closed minded when meet someone new.  For instance once Sandra Bullock’s character finds out her locksmith is Hispanic she demands that her husband fire him because he cannot be trusted.  The locksmith (Michael Peña) turns out be one of most likable characters.  Bullock’s character fails to learn anything about him which shows that once she has a negative judgment about a person it is difficult to change her mind.  This was just one example but many of the scenes follow this same principle.

          Crash was a film that I would definitely recommend.  After watching it in school I think that every high school student should see this film at some point in their academic career.  It can teach people about how to not form judgments about other people before you even know anything about them.  This film is unquestionably in my top 5 films of all time.  I would give it a 9.8 out of 10. 

          

Crash

Can a Crash be subtle?

by Hunter Isham

        I remember being fairly impressed by Paul Haggis' Crash, the film that took home the Academy Award for Best Picture in 2005. I hadn't seen the film in a while before viewing it again for the blog, although over the last four or five years I have heard a good deal about how the film's victory on Oscar night was quite a shocker, and that it may not have been deserving (many considered Brokeback Mountain the clear winner). While I cannot say which of those five was most deserving (I've only seen three of them), I can see why Crash was embraced by the Academy. It's a film with a massive ensemble that turns out one great performance after another in a tale about racism and morality in modern America. This sensitive material is what contributes to the film's divisive position among cinephiles, fueling the argument that for all the wonderful actors in the film, it falls victim to its own maladroit handling of its themes and subtexts. Some hail it as a masterpiece, while others consider it contrived, and I suppose I fall somewhere in between.
        Crash is one of those films in which the large cast is divided into to separate yet constantly intersecting stories, most of which are fairly compelling. We meet people from different backgrounds, racially and socially, who inhabit the bustling city of Los Angeles, representing everything from the Hollywood director to the immigrant shopkeep to the rookie cop. Crimes are committed and investigated, laws are bent and loosely upheld, and perspectives on morality and racism are contrasted and blurred together. This is a film that is difficult to dissect as a whole, but somewhat easier to look at in pieces. The cast, as mentioned above, is absolutely top-notch. Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Michael Peña, Terrence Howard, and Keith David are but just a few members of this ensemble that shine in their roles. Dillon plays a bigoted, pig of an officer who humiliates Howard's television director, violating his wife (well played by Thandie Newton), later fueling a powerful scene with Howard and some other LAPD officers. Cheadle, another officer, struggles with personal and professional problems in a system that pushes for corruption, something David's police captain acknowledges and explains in his one great scene. Peña proves to be the breakout in the handful of scenes he has, particularly one in which he tenderly helps his young daughter cope with living in a dangerous part of the city. The cast of Crash ultimately elevates the material in a way that will allow viewers to forgive its moments of heavy-handed storytelling.
       The most difficult part of Crash to sit through is not its chilling, and at times terribly realistic, scenes of angry confrontation or abuse, but rather the opening sections in which we are introduced to characters who are, in one way or another, harboring a great deal of racial resentment. Perhaps their character easily displays these prejudices, like Sandra Bullock's upper class wife of the district attorney, or has them coaxed out via the a racially charged interaction, as is the case with Howard's director (although his anger is fueled by having to face racism rather than being prejudiced himself). It quickly becomes quite obvious that Crash is a film that will not deliver its messages with much subtlety, at least not those themes dealing with race. For example, a Persian man wants to buy a gun to protect his store, and a trip to the gun shop quickly devolves into the shop owner calling the Persian man "Osama," and asking why he should arm a terrorist. Bullock's character, married to a man who's worried about pleasing minority voters, loudly asks for the locks on their doors to be changed a second time as a Latino locksmith (Peña) with tattoos is just finishing the job, because he most certainly has to be a gang member. To say that people who make these kinds of assumptions do not exist would be false, but to have so much of this racial tension spread throughout the film in such obvious ways makes the story ring just a little less true. Roughly the first third of the film may have you thinking, "He's racist too? And her?!" You'll start to wonder who in the film is a decent human being, but once the heavy-handed heavy lifting is done, we start to see more dimensions of these characters. Some are underwritten, and remain more stereotypical was-ignorant-but-now-sees-the-light archetypes, but others, like Dillon's cop, are written and performed in such a way that your opinion of them changes as the film progresses. I suppose the best way to put it would be to say that this film is just too blatantly obvious for its own good at times, but it mostly overcomes those shortcomings before it reaches its conclusion.
        Crash will continue to divide audiences with each viewing. I land somewhere in the middle of the collision of those viewers, finding it to be a moving, and at times powerful, look at the lives of seemingly disparate individuals in Los Angeles. It's a film that gets better as it and its onlookers settle into the tone and characters it has to offer. Crash tries too hard to be the relevant drama we catch many glimpses of throughout its two hours, but it is by no means a failure. Sure, its approach is a bit contrived, but the film is a wholly worthwhile experience packed with excellent performances, and believe it or not, some illumination on the murky issue of racism. How we relate to one another is shaped by far more than just how we look, with issues of background and deep-seated emotion at play, so it is quite admirable that this film attempts to show complexities that may be glossed over in features with a different take on this kind of story. Flawed but powerful, Crash will no doubt continue to inspire much debate about its merits and faults, and that, I suppose, is the true gauge of a successful film. 8/10


P.S. For those that are curious, of the three 2005 Best Picture nominees that I've seen (Steven Spielberg's Munich, Paul Haggis's Crash, and George Clooney's Good Night, and Good Luck.), I would have to say that I consider Goodnight, and Good Luck. the best of the bunch. It excellently recreates the world of 1950s television journalism as it explores Edward R. Murrow's struggle to report on the egregious actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy. It's so different from Crash that it's a tough comparison to make, but I suppose it appeals to my own interest in period stories (shot in beautiful black and white, no less), especially those about people working in the film and television industry.

Flight

by Tyler Darke

      This is a simple review of a simple, likeable film.

      Flight was a solid film with an enjoyable plot; however, its greatest strength was in the acting. Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, and John Goodman all gave commanding performances. Washington's performance in this film made him a strong contender for the Academy Award for Best Actor. His emotion made his character appear incredibly raw and believable. It allowed the viewer to really see inside the mind of an alcoholic, a rare opportunity. Cheadle was fantastic as usual, taking on the role of Whip's (Washington's) lawyer. Goodman plays Whip's quirky, unorthodox friend in a role that he mastered beautifully. His delivery was flawless, providing perfectly-timed comedic relief.

      Was it worhy of a Best Picture nomination? No, it was not, but it was an exciting, engaging film that was carried by acting veterans. I will definitely be adding it to my movie collection, and I highly recommend seeing it. 8/10

Flight

By Harry McPhaul

Flight was the first film I’ve seen in a while that relied heavily on one person.  It was still a pretty good movie.  It was the story of a pilot (Denzel Washington) and his struggles with alcohol and cocaine.   Throughout the film I found myself viewing him as if he was part of my family.  There were periods when he would go a few days without drinking and I thought he had finally let go but then he would eventually relapse. 

He was teetering on the brink sobriety and alcoholism during several scenes in the film.  His life would be beginning to get better and then one little event would cause him to drink again.  It would already be hard for someone to quit drinking with a support group but to try and do it by himself was almost impossible.  I had a feeling that he would never be able truly release from drinking because of what it meant to him.

Before his drinking became a problem he would drink just for fun until his wife and his son left him.  This caused him to drink just to drink.  It was a way for him to forget and hope his problems would just solve themselves.  He also was not surrounding himself with supporting to people. John Goodman’s character was one that provided a little comic relief although he was not helping the cause.

Harling Mays (John Goodman) was the man who supplied Whip Whittaker (Denzel Washington) with his drugs.  Even when Whittaker was in the hospital after the plane crash Mays walked right in slipped him a little bottle of vodka.  This was the way their relationship worked.  If Whittaker was unable to buy alcohol or cocaine, Mays always found a way to get it to him.

Eventually towards the end of the film Whittaker had to go on trial for his role in the plane crash.  He had stayed up the night before drinking and woke up with a hangover.  The next morning when Whittaker is speaking in front of a council who will make the final decision whether or not he caused the crash. He had finally reached his breaking point and confessed to his drinking and cocaine addiction.  This was the best scene in the whole film. 

I could see that he had finally had enough.  I was glad to see that Denzel got nominated for an Oscar.  If the overall film was better than he would have gotten some more attention but I still do not think he would have beaten out Daniel Day-Lewis for best actor.  I highly recommend this film.  I would give a 8.5/10. Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Flight

Flying High

by Hunter Isham

        When I first heard that Robert Zemeckis, director of such classics as Back to the Future and Forrest Gump, was set to make his return to live-action filmmaking with Flight, I was just barely intrigued. His decade-long hiatus was due not to any self-imposed retirement, but rather his infatuation with and support of motion-capture technology. His work with that method of filmmaking, including The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol, was admirable but a bit of a mixed bag, so his eventual return to live-action was eagerly awaited by many. So why wasn't I, someone who counts Zemeckis' work among my favorite films, excited about Flight? The very little I knew about it, that Denzel Washington was the lead, a pilot, seemed uninteresting. Would this be some modern Top Gun? (I had assumed Washington was playing some kind of military pilot). As it turns out, Zemeckis had signed on to direct a moving character drama about an airline pilot coming to grips with his substance abuse issues after saving nearly every person aboard his craft during a routine flight gone wrong.
        Zemeckis has pointed out that he wishes audiences could go into a film completely cold, unaware of any character or story details, which would have lent his film a good deal of surprise in its opening moments. We see Whip Whitaker (Washington) indulging in more than a few drinks, and some cocaine, just before suiting up and heading to the airport for his morning flight. The scene is still effective without the shock-value, introducing the audience to a man who is at once wildly out of control yet completely in control of the situation. He's charming even as he seemingly puts his passengers' lives in danger, greeting them at the front of the plane as, just out of sight and with one hand, he makes himself a screwdriver for a little pre-flight pick-me-up. The story quickly progresses when, as the film's trailer shows, something goes horribly wrong, and to stabilize the diving aircraft Whip decides to roll the plane upside down as part of an emergency landing. Upon waking up in a hospital, cable news and a pilots' union rep (Bruce Greenwood) filling in the pieces for him, Whip eventually finds out that blood was drawn, and an investigation is underway to discover the true nature of what went wrong and if he had anything to do with it. From that point on the story becomes a bit quieter; focusing on Whip's personal demons and the relationships in his life, but it never once loses its grip on you. To go into any more detail would simply squander the work done by the cast in this character-driven film.
        Washington leads a fine ensemble in what is one of his best performances, taking a man with inherently terrible habits (especially given his profession), and making him instantly charming, never once allowing him to become a two-dimensional character we should either hate or feel sorry for. Kelly Reilly, a British actress perhaps best known for her role as Mrs. John Watson in the Robert Downey, Jr. Sherlock Holmes films, is wonderful as a southern woman who struggles with addiction as well, becoming a companion and confidant for Whip. Bruce Greenwood, aforementioned as Whip's union rep, and Don Cheadle, as Whip's lawyer from the airline, are both strong as they struggle to protect their hurting client. James Badge Dale is a standout as a cancer patient Washington and Reilly encounter in a hospital stairwell, imbuing the film with some of the humor that makes it such an enjoyable experience, although the one performer who truly steals the show here is John Goodman. As Whip's hippie drug dealer, Goodman hilariously dominates in his two scenes, remaining just as memorable as Washington despite his small amount of screen time in this two and half hour film. There is nary a weak link in Flight's cast, with both the veterans and the fresh faces turning in fine performances.
        Although Washington is perhaps the main the reason the film works, the great original script by John Gatins and excellent cast are all brought together with considerable skill by director Zemeckis. He is certainly known for flashy (if still substantive) films, including not just his Back to the Future trilogy but also the technically marvelous Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but Zemeckis restricts his flair to the opening crash, allowing tight but simple direction to guide the rest of the story. That crash, however, is about as white-knuckle intense as it gets, feeling about as real as possible, and recalling in my mind moments like the spacecraft re-entry in Apollo 13. This scene is a bit more fantastical, given the choice to roll the plane, but the effects are top-notch, never once seeming false or over-the-top. Although the emergency landing is what film fans will remember as Zemeckis' shining moment in Flight, other scenes demonstrate his great skill, such as one late in the film when Whip confronts his demons, the camera lingering on a miniature bottle of vodka as the audience waits to see what happens next.
        Flight is a surprising film, not the one I expected, and better than I ever hoped it would be. Denzel Washington gives a wonderful performance, simultaneously vulnerable, funny, and strong, alongside a cast of similarly remarkable turns by a cast at the top of its game. Zemeckis deftly weaves it all together, the moments of action, humor, and drama, to create something uniquely excellent. This film is a big-budget drama not based on history or a best-selling novel, a breed of film that has quietly begun to disappear. Flight may not be groundbreaking, nor is it the best movie of the year, but it's a damn fine film with a cast and crew that's never been better. Sit back, buckle-up, and make sure your seats and tray-tables are in the upright position, because you're in for a heart-pounding, emotionally turbulent ride. 9/10

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 3

The Continuing Adventures...

by Hunter Isham

        The third time's the charm on this, the brand new episode of the Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review Podcast, as we may have finally overcome our technical difficulties! On this edition of the DMI Review Podcast we discuss our recent reviews, including A Good Day to Die Hard, The Untouchables, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and Life of Pi, and for a bonus round we delve into what make our favorite films just that. Tyler examines what makes 2005's Best Picture winner Crash work (and why it's his favorite), Harry explains why The Usual Suspects is his offbeat choice for an all-time favorite, and I fawn over the Indiana Jones series (yes, even the fourth one), specifically Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, my adventure of choice. There's even a bit more Oscar talk as we look at what makes a film "deserving" of a win or not. As always, feel free to listen with the link below, or check it out via iTunes. These are the continuing adventures of the DMI Review Podcast...

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 3

A Message to Subscribers

An Update on Updates

by Hunter Isham

2ND UPDATE: As it turns out, that delay of 1.5 to 2 days was likely just the system getting warmed up, as it now seems to email within hours of a fresh post! Hopefully this will be the last update, as everything appears to be in working order. The first update and original post are below.

UPDATE: Good news, everyone! The subscribing system seems to be working, albeit slowly. If a test run I did with this very post is any indication, it appears the system will email you whenever we post new content here on the blog, but the email won't arrive for about a day and half to two days after that new content is posted. To subscribe, just type your email into the space to the right of this post where it says "Subscribe here for updates!"A window will pop up and prompt you to do what I like to think of as a "drunk test," essentially having you type what you see written among some strange looking letters. Once that is done, you will receive an email with a link that will allow you to confirm the subscription. These instructions are provided throughout the process.

        If you've been missing out on our reviews lately due to the previously faulty subscription system, check out the Review Archive page, where we have all of our reviews listed by each film in ascending order. Also, if you've been missing out on our podcast, it's available on the Podcast page, as well as through iTunes. Thanks for your patience as we resolved this technical issue. The original post is below.

ORIGINAL POST

        It's been a great couple of months for us here at the Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review, getting our footing as we have embarked on this adventure. However, it has not been without its troubles, something to which listeners of our podcast can probably attest. One issue that may be plaguing you as a reader is attempting to subscribe via email to our blog, but ultimately receiving nothing. We have just recently become aware of this, and while we're not completely sure why this may be happening (or rather not happening), we are working on it. As of right now, we think we've solved the problem, but there's only one way to find out. Please try to subscribe once more if you were unable to on any prior occasion. If you still have difficulty, you can contact us at dmireviewstaff@gmail.com with questions, or to simply let us know it's still not working. Fingers crossed...

Life of Pi

By Harry McPhaul

I went into Life of Pi expecting it to be a boring nature film that I would not enjoy.  I heard about how visually pleasing it was which made me think it was going to be less story and more breathtaking images.  It turned out to be completely different than what I was expecting.  It was film about a young man who was thrown overboard with a few zoo animals on the way to Canada. 

I thought the choice to have an adult Pi narrate the story was excellent.  It made the film seem more realistic because he could remember almost every emotion and thought process of the entire voyage.  It was amazing how he figured out that there was no way he could survive on an island he found out in the middle of the ocean.  The island was one of the most beautiful parts of the film.  It had an immense amount of color and although I am pretty sure the meerkats were digitally created they looked incredibly real.    

I would have liked to see it in 3D just to see if all visual effects still had the same of amount clearness.  Overall I was thoroughly impressed by this film.  I went into this film thinking that I was not going to like it because I thought it was just going to be about a boy and a tiger stuck in the ocean.  I am glad I was wrong.  It in fact is a tale that “will make you believe in God.” I would give this film an 8.5/10. Must see. 

Life of Pi

by Tyler Darke

      Well, it took me long enough to see it, but I'm glad that I finally did. I had some hesitations about seeing this movie. Although the previews were beautiful, they did not draw me to it. I thought that a movie about a boy and a tiger stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean could get rather boring, but it didn't. It was much more complex than that. The film had themes of religion, adventure, and maturation that were beautifully developed.

      Although I have not read the book, I am sure this film was a fantastic adaptation of the novel. It took a phenomenal story and brought it to life through vivid colors, stunning effects, and passionate acting.

      The visuals were so beautiful that this film could have been nearly as successful without dialogue. As much as I enjoyed the script, the images spoke for themselves. This was a story to be perceived by the eyes. Seeing Pi's interaction with the tiger, Richard Parker, was an amazing experience that could only happen through film.

      I must give credit to Suraj Sharma for his portrayal of the main character, the young Pi Patel. His performance was commendable, especially for his film debut. In my opinion, he should have been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor.

      I would encourage anyone who loves a good adventure film to see Life of Pi. It is definitely deserving of all the attention and acclaim it has received. 8.5/10

Life of Pi

On the High Seas with Richard Parker

by Hunter Isham

        I didn't quite know what to make of Life of Pi when I first heard about it. A young man is stranded on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Sound enticing? Beyond the "next Avatar" status the film earned with its beautiful visuals, and visual effects, it seemed to be one of those vague films I was not likely to see. But then it garnered eleven nominations, second most of all nominated films, so I thought I might check it out. I'm very glad I did, as the film was not only bolstered by its wonderful visuals, but also an offbeat and interesting tale of a boy whose faith is tested when he's left for dead, at the mercy of a hungry tiger.
        This young man is the titular Pi, taking the mathematical name as his given name, Piscine Patel, led to an unfortunate nickname in the schoolyard. Pi's family owns a zoo in his native India, filled with every kind of animal, including the tiger Richard Parker (thusly named due a paperwork mix-up). He grows up with a strong interest in religion and love of God, following Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity for a broad divine connection. The story advances to show Pi as a young man of 16, the time at which his father, who always preached rationalism against a multi-faith life, decides to move the family and their zoo to Canada. As you might have guessed, they board a ship with their animals in tow, a storm engulfs the ship, and Pi finds himself stranded on the lifeboat with Richard Parker and few other furry guests. The entire film is told through flashback, with a middle-aged Pi recounting his story to a writer. Once Pi hits the water, his story becomes a bit more episodic, but no less interesting as he figures out how to survive both as a stranded human and as a co-inhabitant of the lifeboat.
        The older Pi is well played with a weary wisdom and sense of humor by Irrfan Khan, while the younger Pi is played by Suraj Sharma, a fresh face who imbues his character with a determination that never flags (save for some moments of desperation early on) and a comic side that allows the audience to marvel at his success and ingenuity in the most precarious of situations. The remaining members of the human cast are equally exceptional, with not a false performance in the group. The true co-star, and even scene-stealer, of Life of Pi is Richard Parker, a creature very sparingly portrayed by a real tiger, and mostly a computerized creation. Living creatures can be a challenge to portray via CGI, something first successfully accomplished in Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park, but Richard Parker is one of the most convincing animals ever brought to life on the silver screen. It could be relatively easy to mimic the movements and postures of a tiger, but some sequences, such as one where Richard Parker has been swimming, and is looking into Pi's eyes as he clings to the side of the boat, are actually moving. You get the same feeling looking into Richard Parker's eyes in this moment that you get when you look into the eyes of a beloved pet. Your heart sinks a bit. To evade the trappings of CGI (like "dead eyes") while creating what is essentially a completely fake animal is truly an achievement.
        For those of you familiar with Life of Pi, you may find it odd that I've gotten this far into the review without mentioning the person most responsible for making what some called an unadaptable book a cinematic success. Ang Lee, director of Sense and Sensibility, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Brokeback Mountain, is the master at work here, taking a film that could have been repetitive and lackluster, and making it something wholly deserving of the Academy Award for Best Director. Lee's victory on Oscar night was bittersweet for me as a fan of Spielberg and Lincoln, but there is no denying the award went to someone who fully earned it. To top it off, he even makes a great use of 3D, finding inventive ways to play with effects by placing the camera above and below the water. Lee has quite simply made a film that pleases the eyes, mind, and heart.
        Life of Pi is a film that I have a hard time summing up beyond its short premise of a young man and a tiger in a boat. It's so much more than that, yet it's so simple at times that that description suits the film well. This is a film that is less about its premise and general arc than it is about the individual moments shared by Pi and Richard Parker as they drift along on the Pacific Ocean. There are of course themes about religion and human-animal relationships that make the film worth revisiting and discussing, but what I will remember about it is the charming, and at times heartbreaking, story told of a young man facing the most unusual of circumstances, even for a lone shipwreck survivor. It's a peculiar story brought to life by fine performances and stunning visuals, a film that will surprise you with its heart and amaze you with its style. Pi's life makes for a story worth telling, and it's certainly become one that's well-told. 8.75/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

A Review Redux

by Hunter Isham

        I used as the title for my review of Lincoln a quote from the film that is as follows: "I could write shorter sermons, but when I get started I'm too lazy to stop." I knew ahead of time that the quote would sum up the length of that review, but I may have gone overboard with my recent review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I had a ton of time to kill (I was on a car ride back from Los Angeles at the time), and simply kept writing... and writing. To make an excruciatingly long story short, my review became more of an analysis and explanation of the film as part of a greater whole (the eventual Hobbit trilogy). I've decided to take another stab at a more conventional (and God willing shorter) review, although my longer look at the film is still available to read. Enter with caution, as you may end up looking like Bilbo Baggins in the above photograph. But now for something shorter...

        Peter Jackson's return to Middle-earth, the first of his three part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, will likely be an enchanting and exciting experience for those who truly relish the opportunity to visit this unique cinematic world. I count myself among the Jackson-Tolkien faithful (although I'm not a big fan of the books), so I was probably going to enjoy the film despite its flaws. The good news is that An Unexpected Journey is a fun adventure film, filled with humor, heart, and some spectacular visuals. The bad news is that this film feels a bit bloated as it works out a great deal of introductory and expository details that will hopefully pay off in the forthcoming installments.

        For the unfamiliar, The Hobbit, Tolkien's first (and originally standalone) Middle-earth adventure, tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, the titular hobbit, as he is recruited by the wizard Gandalf the Grey to join a band of thirteen dwarves seeking to reclaim their homeland and fortune from the devious dragon Smaug. This tale is smaller in scale and gravity than that told in The Lord of the Rings, and the work Jackson and his writing partners Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens have done to expand the narrative (mostly based on additional texts by Tolkien, but sometimes by their own creation) helps to elevate the status of the story from fun trifle to relevant precursor. Although the modified story becomes this film's greatest detractor, there is too much to like, from the cast to the always great production values, for this film to be a disappointment. Is it Lord of the Rings? No, but then again it was never meant to be. It is, however, a perfectly charming return to Middle-earth.

        An Unexpected Journey is an expectedly enjoyable romp due largely to the efforts of the wonderful cast, led by Martin Freeman (BBC's The Office and Sherlock) as Bilbo. He takes the eventually tired adventurer of Rings and makes him a fussy, reluctant hero coerced into embracing a spirited heritage of perilous exploits. Pushing Bilbo out the round door of his comfy hobbit hole is Ian McKellan's Gandalf, just as lovably grumpy and wise as he was ten years ago in The Return of the King. The band of dwarves is a colorful assortment of fun performances (and Academy Award nominated hair and makeup work), but their leader, Thorin Oakenshield, is the true standout with a regal ferocity afforded him by Richard Armitage. Returning cast members such as Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, and Ian Holm all get nice moments to shine and further weave Hobbit DNA with that of Rings, and Andy Serkis is brilliant once more as the creature Gollum. Some new, non-dwarven faces pop up as well, including Barry Humphries (known to the world as Dame Edna) as the computer motion captured Great Goblin.

        The accomplished group of actors who breathe life into The Hobbit are accompanied by the behind scenes artists who work their own kind of Middle-earth magic on the production. Sets, such as Bilbo's home (Bag End) and the Elven residence of Rivendell, are just as inviting and beautifully rendered on the screen as they were in the Rings trilogy, while the New Zealand locations continue to amaze viewers with their inherent natural beauty. The aforementioned Oscar nomination for hair and makeup is well-earned, giving each of the thirteen dwarves distinct faces and beards, not to mention the many other characters that populate this cinematic universe. Andrew Lesnie, Jackson's frequent cinematographic collaborator, once again captures every image with a beautiful sheen, creating images further enlivened by another fantastic score by Rings veteran Howard Shore. His work here is yet another piece of the cinematic puzzle that weaves together this developing trilogy with the previous films. The script by Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens, though somewhat erratically paced, is ultimately a humorous and adventurous one. Everything comes together under Jackson's swift direction, finding a nice balance between character and action.

        I can feel reader fatigue setting in, so I'll start to wrap it up. As for the elephant in the room, Jackson and co.'s decision to make an elephant-sized trilogy out of a hobbit-sized novel (and the use of a higher frame rate), I will simply say that I don't feel cheated, and the future films seem promising. You can look to my longer write-up for more information and analysis than you'll ever want or need to know about the subject. I'm a long-winded writer, so even this shorter review isn't as short as it probably could be, but what can I say? I'm a fan of Middle-earth on the big screen, and I'm more than happy to journey there and back again... and again and again. If you loved Peter Jackson's The Lord of Rings then you will likely enjoy this film (with appropriately adjusted expectations), one which is filled with light-hearted fun and daring adventure. "From the smallest beginnings come the greatest legends," reads The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey's tagline, and while it may not be small, this film is no doubt the start of something big, bold, and wholly worth the long journey its makers embarked upon so long ago. 8/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

by Tyler Darke

      The Lord of the Rings series of films is, by far, the greatest fantasy film series of all time. They take the brilliant writings of J. R. R. Tolkien and bring them to life in a way that only Peter Jackson can. I am pleased to say that the Hobbit film series has started off on the right foot, in line with its preceding series.

      One of the major successes of the Lord of the Rings series was the incredibly high-quality acting. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey followed in its footsteps with tremendous performances by both the old and the new actors. Particularly, I believe that Martin Freeman deserves a great deal of praise for his portrayal of the series' main character, Bilbo Baggins. As intimidating as it is to walk into a multi-billion dollar film franchise and take on the role of the main character, Freeman did it beautifully and with apparent confidence. Ian McKellen was fantastic, as always, as the beloved Gandalf, and Andy Serkis was brilliant, once again, as Gollum.

      The Hobbit had an adventurous and engaging plot that kept me wrapped up in the story. The only criticism that I would have of it would be the pace of the scenes early on in the film when all of the dwarves were congregating at Bilbo's residence. It dragged out too long, and caused me to lose focus on the film. This portion of plot could have been developed just as well in a much shorter period of time, keeping the viewer more engaged. This however, is a small criticism of a very successful movie.

      Overall, I loved The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and I am excited for the two films to follow, which I am sure we will be reviewing as well. 9/10 

      "True courage is not about knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one." - Gandalf

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

There and back again. Again.

by Hunter Isham

  I am a great fan of Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, admiring everything from the wonderful cast’s performances to the now classic scores by Howard Shore. I cannot say that I am an admirer of J.R.R. Tolkien and his books (of which I’ve only read two), but his Middle-earth is superbly rendered by Jackson and his team of filmmaking magicians in New Zealand. I’m sensing a Lincoln vibe here. As those of you who have read my review of that film are well aware, I had a heavy bias toward it, which no doubt influenced my ability to enjoy the film, if not love it. The same can be said for the first part of Jackson’s three film adaptation of Tolkien’s original Middle-earth adventure, The Hobbit. This film, subtitled An Unexpected Journey, is one that I was bound to be fond of, and I have reached the halfway-point “one-third-of-the-way point” with some quibbles but overall find Jackson’s return to Middle-earth to be an enchanting journey. In fact, this review may as well be titled “In Defense of The Hobbit,” if only because I believe some of the criticism lobbed its way is undue, and perhaps premature.

  The majority of said complaints are aimed squarely at the elephant in the hobbit hole, the expansion of the relatively slim Hobbit book into three films, each potentially about three hours long. I’ll address this later, as it is something unique to this new film trilogy, so let’s instead look to the “usual subjects” of film review. This first third of Tolkien’s story introduces us to a young Bilbo Baggins, unknowingly about to set out on a quest with thirteen dwarves to reclaim their homeland and gold from the evil dragon Smaug. Prodded and aided by his new acquaintance, wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo encounters trolls, goblins, orcs, and a peculiar fellow with a certain precious ring on his mind. To give more detail would be to reveal that as a first act to a three part story this film suffers a bit from bearing the expository load of a newly expanded story that appears to have a much larger pay-off in its endgame than this film is able to offer up in its final moments. The journey is not as grand as that in The Lord of The Rings (from here on out LOTR), nor as important to the fate of Middle-earth. Although the story can seem a tad thin at times, An Unexpected Journey has quite a bit going for it all the way through, not the least of which is its cast.

  Perhaps this film’s greatest asset is the stuffy, fussy titular character, Bilbo, wonderfully embodied here by Martin Freeman, known to many for his roles on the BBC’s The Office and Sherlock. He plays the reluctant adventurer, far removed from the aging hobbit longing for another grand trip played in LOTR by Sir Ian Holm, and ultimately allows for a character arc in this film and the two that follow in which Bilbo can  grow into the tired hero we meet in The Fellowship of the Ring. Sir Ian McKellan returns as Gandalf, once more donning the cloak and pointy hat, not to mention the kind heart and keen wisdom. Andy Serkis also returns to his now famous role of Gollum, the once hobbit-like creature consumed by the power of the One Ring. The extended scene in which he and Bilbo share in a game of riddles is absolutely wonderful, humorous and at times chilling, reminding the viewer that Serkis’ performance is one of the best and most finely tuned components of Jackson’s cinematic Middle-earth. Other returning players include Cate Blanchett as elf queen Lady Galadriel, Hugo Weaving as the elf Lord Elrond, and Christopher Lee as wizard Saruman the White. New faces are abound, as we get not only the thirteen dwarves (a handful of whom are given nice character moments in this first film), led by the regal, stoic Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), but also Radagast the Brown, a loopy, nature-minded wizard played by former Doctor Who star Sylvester McCoy. Thorin is the standout of these new characters, given a noble cause to fight for and an ancient foe to battle, and played with gravitas by Armitage. Radagast has been unfairly compared to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace’s Jar-Jar Binks, a similarly crazy, comedic relief character (also in the first installment of a prequel trilogy), but he serves a much more important purpose by setting into motion major events that will play out over the course of the next two films.

  Just as the cast is in fine form, the technical aspects of this picture, from Jackson’s direction to the makeup to the computer generated enemies and environments, are all top notch. Howard Shore’s score, using many familiar themes, such as those for the Shire and the One Ring, feels at home once more in Middle-earth, crafting music that is at once different but composed of the same musical DNA as his scores for LOTR. One big technological controversy surrounding the film is Jackson’s decision to shoot the entire film at 48FPS, also known on posters, ads, and marquees as HFR 3D. This means higher frame rate, specifically 48 frames of film per second, which is twice the traditional frame rate used by Hollywood since the 1920s. To envision the difference, think of a flip book, filled with still images that, when flipped through quickly, create the illusion of a moving image. Now imagine that flip book having twice the number of images (still depicting the exact same motion), and viewing those images in the same amount of time. It should create a smoother, sharper little “movie,” inching closer to the continuous images we actually observe with our own eyes. As much as the continuous display of images may just be an illusion, the 24FPS method is an illusion our eyes have been used to for more than 80 years. To many, An Unexpected Journey looks sped up when viewed in HFR 3D (the 48FPS is only showing in 3D, with standard 3D and 2D available at theaters), and to others it made the production look cheap and hyper-real, like watching a soap opera on a massive high definition television. I personally found it to look fantastic, with most agreeing that sweeping landscape shots, as well as some of the computer graphics, looked absolutely gorgeous with the added clarity. I’ve read that those used to digital media, especially video games, that display images at high frame rates are likely to be more accustomed, and therefore more adaptable, to this new technology. I for one, though having enjoyed it, think the best initial demonstration for this technology would have been a film like Moneyball, where the added clarity could make the practical sets, and especially the baseball sequences, absolutely pop off the screen. A CGI-heavy fantasy film was perhaps not the best medium for a technology that inherently reveals a lack of detail in most traditional methods normally hidden between the standard 24FPS frame rate. An Unexpected Journey will not be available in HFR 3D on home media, so if you’re curious about this new process, you may have to pony up the higher ticket price (because of course it costs more!) to see it with this December’s The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

  I hope that is as exhaustive as is necessary (the paragraph sure is long enough), but as promised, here comes my defense of Peter Jackson and co.’s decision to split Tolkien’s 310 page book into three (probably) three hour films. Of course the first thing that came to everyone’s minds when rumors swirled that the already surprising two film adaptation would be once more divided was one thing and one thing only: MORE MONEY! Even I, as one of the LOTR cinematic-faithful, had my doubts. Warner Bros. and MGM, the studios behind the $500+ million dollar trilogy, quite obviously would like a third tentpole (especially the recently bankrupt and rehabilitated MGM) to rake in the billions, at least if it didn’t prove to be too costly to do some additional writing, filming, etc..., but Jackson and his team, comprised of partner Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, remained the big mystery. Their track record shows an effort to put story before anything else, let alone profit, and to make such a slim book an epic trilogy did seem like a blatant cash grab. But then they explained how they would do it. Tolkien wrote additional material to bridge the gap between his first novel, the children’s fairytale The Hobbit, and his darker, more complex LOTR, ultimately fleshing out events referenced only briefly in the first book that he had no idea would have later connected to his epic trilogy. For example, Gandalf disappears for a period in the book, but his absence is accounted for, and is directly related to the events of LOTR, giving Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens the opportunity to create a cinematic backstory to their previous films, rather than just a straight adaptation of The Hobbit. One lesser point to make is also that The Hobbit is a more compact narrative than LOTR, with quick, concise storytelling that is at odds with the dense, descriptive (and sometimes a bit dull) text of the later trilogy. This means that a lot happens in just a few lines of text, so when such scenes are fleshed out (some brief mentions become big set-pieces) for the screen, they inevitably become longer.

  An Unexpected Journey serves mainly as an introductory film, beginning the quest and presenting a host of characters and conflicts that will build toward a resolution as the series progresses. Without revealing too much of what happens in this film, as well as what is planned to occur in the sequels, I can say that the primary villain of LOTR, the evil Sauron, is established as slowly returning and possibly gaining power here, a storyline running parallel to the dwarves’ quest. Also, Bilbo’s acquisition of the Ring, obviously a major part of the earlier films, could be given more attention in these new films, as when Tolkien first wrote The Hobbit he just considered it a magic ring, not the ring that he would build a multi-volume story around. Tolkien back-engineered a mythology with which he could make LOTR a rich, towering tale. With so much to add that bridges The Hobbit and LOTR, just as much needs to be introduced for everything to tie together in the third film. It is my theory that An Unexpected Journey, no doubt a film that is overly long (but enjoyable for those who love this world), has suffered the most from the three film decision, and that the next two installments, 2013’s The Desolation of Smaug and 2014’s There and Back Again, may benefit by front-loading the first film with a good deal of exposition and leisurely character introductions, ultimately allowing the brewing conflicts to breathe when their importance dons on those who think The Hobbit is just about some short people and a wizard going to slay a dragon and claim their treasure.

  Whew. There and back again is most certainly right. Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a welcome return to Middle-earth for both the director and his many fans, if still not quite the film we wanted. There are some sequences that could be shorter (like a nice but unnecessary trilogy-bookending scene with Elijah Wood’s Frodo), or even eliminated, but it’s all handled with great technical skill, not to mention the wonderful performances by the entire cast. There are also some new creations by Jackson and co. that don’t always work, like an imposing but ultimately flat orc villain not present in the book, but such small failures are overshadowed by the aforementioned cast and crew. This Hobbit film suffers by having to be the first of an unexpected, expanded narrative that, if the many plots introduced are any indication, will grow into the prequel we hoped it would be by journey’s end. “All good stories deserve embellishment,” says Gandalf to a nervous Bilbo, “You’ll have a tale or two to tell of your own when you come back.” The same can be said of the three part adaptation of The Hobbit, something that seems to be earned, at least for now, and will hopefully be worth the journey there and back again when all is said and done. 8/10

P.S. I hope this unconventional evaluation of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey didn’t prove too arduous, especially given that I spent only about one third of this super-sized (Hobbit-sized?) review on critiquing the film. I felt that it was necessary to take this opportunity to express that I think this film’s faults may eventually be forgiven in the face of stronger, faster, and more enjoyable (for non-die hard fans) follow-up films. An Unexpected Journey is being followed by films that, rather than conventional sequels devised separately from their original counterparts, are essentially just continuations of one large story, making it the first act of one massive nine hour movie. The Lord of the Rings film trilogy benefited from a denser text with more natural break points for separate films, but I have faith that Jackson, Walsh, and Boyens have done their best to make an expanded cinematic experience that will benefit from becoming a denser narrative than its own source material.

Also, one final point to make is that An Unexpected Journey has a fairly “that’s it?” kind of ending, even for those who know more is on its way, and I believe this film may have a hastily planned end point, because there is more to the story present in the film’s promotional material (much of it released before the three film decision), implying a different initial vision for the first film, and perhaps further demonstrating that the more substantial developments of the story will come in the second and third films.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

By Harry McPhaul

Let me begin by saying that The Hobbit is a film worth seeing.  Should it have won a few Oscars, no but it did deserve to be nominated for a few more.  The actors in this film were not as believable as those in the original trilogy.  The characters who were in both, gave excellent performances, as usual.  It was not that the new people were bad it was just trying to fill the shoes of Michael Jordan.  It would be wrong to assume that they could match the acting level from the original. The acting may have not been equal but the scenery and the visual presentation was never better.

They do a great job in creating mythical cities and animals.  One of my favorite parts takes place at a dwarven city, which is built into a wall. During this part the film is showing how the dwarves mine inside the mountain.  It also shows a dragon which attacks the city.  The dragon was breath taking in size and visual appearance, although we never actually see the whole dragon.  I could see the individual scales and scratches on the dragon.  The attention to detail in all the special effects made the writing better.

The writing in this film did not seem like the others.  It felt as if they were trying to make this a little lighter.  There were a few more jokes and corny lines that brought the film down from the rest of the films. The writing, like the acting was not bad, it just could have been better.  Hopefully the other ones are a better.  Overall, it was a movie you should see.  I would give it an 8.5/10.