Red Lights (2012)

Let's talk for a minute about movies that have bad endings. Now it's true that a bad ending does not automatically make the whole film bad. If there is entertainment to be found before the ending hits, then you can't call it a complete failure. I am reminded of the ending of "The Golden Compass," which was horribly disappointing because it just ended without any resolution. Then again, it was the first part of a trilogy that had the next two films canceled, so we can't really blame it if the open ended nature of the ending is unsatisfying. Which it was. Especially since that series would have been crazy awesome.

There is, however, a difference between a movie with a bad ending and a movie with a stupid ending. While stupid endings are bad, bad endings aren't necessarily stupid. Let's take a look at the differences between the two.

Bad Ending - An ending which is unsatisfying, not necessarily because of ambiguity, but because it fails to adequately fulfill any promises the rest of the film mat have offered.
Example: "No Country For Old Men" was very interesting up until the last half hour when the main freaking character, Josh Brolin, gets unceremoniously killed off camera and forgotten about, effectively derailing the entire narrative. Then Javier Bardem crashes his car and walks off, Tommy Lee Jones tells us about a dream he had, and the movie just ends. Not like Josh Brolin's story was interesting or anything. No, I want to hear some vague psychoanalysis of dreams. That's riveting.

Stupid Ending - An ending that insults your intelligence by expecting you to have paid no attention to the rest of the movie, or have absolutely no concern about anything making a lick of sense whatsoever.
Example: The ending of "The Book of Eli" expects us to believe that Denzel Washington not only accurately memorized the entire Bible cover to cover, word for word, but was also blind the entire movie. Yet he constantly was pulling off not only devastatingly effective kung-fu, which while highly dubious is possible, but also had him shooting a gun with pinpoint accuracy on many occasions. I'm talking drilling a guy between the eyes at 50 paces accurate here. While blind as Stevie Wonder. I guess we were supposed to believe that God himself was nudging his arm just a bit more to the left and saying "There ya go. That's a headshot right there." Why is God helping Denzel shoot people? What ever happened to "Thou shalt not kill?" I love when religious tripe contradicts itself.

You see the difference in the two? One is just disappointing, the other is enough to get you mad because you feel like you just wasted your time while the movie laughs at you for it. And I would take a bad ending over a stupid ending any day.

But what possible reason could I have for beginning this post with a diatribe about stupid endings? What possible reason indeed...

"This isn't ending well for me, is it?"

"Red Lights" is a mystery about a pair of professors/paranormal investigators, played by Cillian Murphy and Sygourney Weaver, who go around debunking supernatural claims with science and all that good stuff. Robert De Niro is a blind psychic named Simon Silver, who is apparently capable of extraordinary things including spoon bending, mind reading, and being able to make a person's heart stop. That last one is what prompted his retirement years ago, when one of his critics mysteriously dropped dead. But when he makes an unexpected comeback, the team of investigators feel it's a perfect opportunity to see if there really is more to him than gimmicks.

That's all well and good, and it is admittedly interesting to see the tricks that those phonies use to appear magical, despite the fact that most of the time it just boils down to the guy wearing an ear piece that has someone on the other end feeding him information. It's nothing too advanced, but every once in a while there's a neat little trick they expose which can provide something of a "eureka" moment if you've ever wondered how that stuff works.

There is also an emotional lynchpin with Sygourney's character, who has a son who has been in a coma for some 20 years. She's an atheist, and for her that means that she can't bring herself to take her son off of life support, because she doesn't believe there's anything afterwards. If she did believe, and she wishes that she could, she would do it in a second. But for now she'll keep waiting and hoping that he'll come back and experience the only existence he'll ever have.

I hate seeing great actors in mediocre films.

There is some admittedly really gripping and well done drama to be found in "Red Lights." Sygourney's character is full of so much pain, and she is such a dynamite actress, and always has been, that when she's given room to work she'll tear the house down around anyone else in the room. And with a great actor like Cillian Murphy, who actually has very good chemistry with her, there are the makings of some really good stuff here.

As far as De Niro goes, I'll just say what I've said in the past, even though few people share my opinion here - I find him to be just okay. He's never really done that much for me personally as an actor, but I'm not going to say that he's not good. That would be stupid and false. De Niro is a great actor. I'm just not a huge fan of his. And "Red Lights" was pretty much your average De Niro performance. If you like him in other stuff you'll like him in this. One thing he's not is inconsistent.

See that there? Sneering while blind. The guy's a master, I tell you...

So what was it about "Red Lights" that made me start off this entry so? Obviously, it was the ending. Oh my goodness. The ending was rubbish. Pure and simple. If the ending to "Red Lights" was a literal rubbish pile, it would be the finest pile of rubbish one could hope to find. Award winning rubbish, I dare say.

I don't want to get too into what happens, but suffice to say that it approaches Shyamalan-level stupidity. But it's a strange kind of stupid that doesn't really hit you until you do something foolhardy like "think about it for two seconds." Basically what the twist ending adds is a few little things earlier in the film are put into a new context, and a character's motivations are changed, which admittedly makes certain scenes make some additional sense.

However, at the same time that same character's motivations are now completely backwards and scattered on every other scene in the movie, another character's death is now either impossibly coincidental or impossibly nonsensical, and the life work of one of the main characters is now rendered pointless for no good reason. And the only possible conclusion that we are forced to draw from it all is that that character with the twist is an idiot who likes to sabotage and confuse themselves, which is easy since apparently they also have a bad case of Alzheimers.

 They also drop the most emotionally gripping plot thread, the son in the coma, halfway through the movie. Fantastic. -_-

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "stupid" ending. And what almost makes it worse is that it's forced. This is not a movie that needed a twist. It would have worked far better if there hadn't been one. In fact, that could have been downright gutsy. What does that say about where we are with movies nowadays when a thriller not having a twist is actually a more shocking twist than having one?

Just...stop trying to be clever, Hollywood. You're not very good at it.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Red Lights" is passable for the first 3/4's of the movie. The ending is so ludicrously bad that it ruins everything that came before it. Yeah, it's one of those endings. And I hate to say that because Cillain Murphy and Sygourney Weaver are two of my favorites, but this just wastes them. There may be some enjoyment to be found for some, but I'm not sure by who. Maybe De Niro fans who liked "The Village?"

The Hunger Games (2012)

Sometimes I really wonder what the criteria for "the next big thing is," because to me it seems really inconsistent. Why is a boring story about a bland, useless sack of teenage sociopathy having to choose between a possessive, borderline rapist stalker and a dull, uncaring asshole of a monster (because those are obviously her only two possible choices) so popular? Is it just because teens are told that it's the new thing, and that they have to like if they want to be cool?

I think about stuff like this because sometimes something will come out and become massively popular, and I can't figure what it is that made it so huge when I'd seen it done before, but the most that happened was perhaps a bit of a cult following. Take "Twilight" for example. That was not the first time someone thought to themselves "Hey, vampires are sexy." The first notable example one would probably think of would be "Interview with The Vampire" back in '91, which is actually a good vampire story, as opposed to Edward and Bella's "epic," and far more heartbreaking and tragic, but don't forget the chairman of the board himself, Dracula. And I'm not just talking about the Coppola version. Even the original Bela Lugosi film is actually pretty sexy. And it does it while remembering the vampire is A BAD GUY. What a novel concept, right?

But where were the Louis backpacks and LeStat posters on the walls of teenage girls? LeStat was way more of a bad boy than Edward freaking Cullen, not to mention better looking and more charismatic. Oh, and he was actually bad, which is a nice touch. Not to mention Antonio Bandaras' character of Armand, who Jacob Black wishes he could be as gay as. Where were the "Team Lugosi" t-shirts? Where were the soccer moms fantasizing about Christopher Lee?

"Bitch, you couldn't even handle this."

The point here is "Why Twilight?" It's been done before, and done much better. At least those other films had the decency to get vampire lore right.

And now we have "The Hunger Games," another "young adult" book series. Now, I didn't even hear of this until the movie was set to come out, but my friends who read it informed me that it was very good. Then again, I was told the same of "Twilight." Then again, I was also told the same of "Harry Potter," which actually was quite good. So...coin toss?

The thing that struck me most about "The Hunger Games" was the story. This was because when it was described to me the first time, the very next words out of my mouth were "Soooo it's "Battle Royale," huh?" And without fail the person describing it to me said "What's that?" By then I was in full snob-mode and said with a fair amount of incredulity "You've never seen "Battle Royale?" Oh man."

Of course they'd never seen "Battle Royale." Why would they have seen it? An actual good movie where you have to read subtitles? Forget that. I need to catch up on "Jersey Shore."

Ok, I know what this looks like but seriously, it's a good flick. What? It is!

Fans of "The Hunger Games" have probably heard enough about "Battle Royale" to make them sick at this point, because I know that people like myself certainly brought it up enough to make sure that they'd never watch it, simply out of spite. But there is a reason we bring it up, and that's because it's pretty freaking identical to "The Hunger Games," only it's not backed by a raving mob of fangirls and soccer moms.

Which brings me back to my original point once again: Why this instead of "Battle Royale?" What's the big difference?

Ah. I see.

Oh right. Heaven forbid our violence be disturbing. Gotta get the kiddies in the theaters to watch people KILL EACH OTHER. That's good old fashioned family entertainment. As long as the girl and boy hook up at the end, then you can do whatever the hell you want and call it teenage oriented. You know who else had a happy ending? Mickey and Mallory from "Natural Born Killers!" Let's show the kids that! It's a romance!

Still a better love story than "Twilight."

Geez, that's the longest opening tirade yet. Should probably talk about the movie I saw at some point, huh? I suppose I'll get to it, seeing as it's what I do here.

As is probably evident, I went into "The Hunger Games" with the mindset of "Okay, movie. Impress me. Show me what all the fuss is about." Maybe not the healthiest attitude, to be sure, but it's hard to not be a tad cynical with something this huge. And that's particularly true when the fan base is partly composed of the teenage demographic which, let's face it, has the absolute worst taste in movies. So yeah, I was skeptical.

After seeing "The Hunger Games," I'm left at something of an impasse. While I thought that it was a well put together film, in fact it's made far better than most teen blockbusters are, at the end of the day I still don't get the "why this" aspect of it. Is it good? Yeah, it's pretty good. Is it a sweeping, multi-billion dollar saga to rival "Lord of The Rings?" No. The story is pretty weak sauce. Having not read the trilogy, I don't know where it goes from here, but as for the first installment, I'm not picking up much of a sense of epic.

Before I say enough negative stuff to give the impression that I didn't like "The Hunger Games," let me be clear: It's a very well made film. It really is. The visual style is quite striking, albeit a bit shaky and jittery with the camera at times, and it does do a very good job at transporting you to a different place. If "The Hunger Games" does one thing quite well it's to immerse the viewer in the world they have created. Now, whether or not the world makes sense is another matter, but it still immerses you.

And when it has to be dramatic and emotionally charged, for the most part it is pulled off very well. In particular, the opening 20 minutes is among some of the best dramatic moments, during what is known as "The Reaping," which is just a really sinister way of saying "a lottery." I know some complaints were made about "The Hunger Games" starting off slowly, but to be honest with you I thought that was some of the best stuff in the movie.

Look at that suit. Richard Dawson would be proud.

The first hour focuses on their training and the whole rigamarole behind the game, which is basically a TV show which follows the battle to the death that these kids are forced to participate in. It's essentially "Battle Royale" if it were "Ender's Game" if it took place in ancient Rome as interpreted by "The Running Man." If that makes sense. In any case I found the exploration of the theatricality involved, and the fact that almost everyone involved is totally aware how much of a hollow, flashy, soulless spectacle it is to be the most interesting part of the film.

As far as action goes, despite the shaky cam being abused a bit, for a PG-13 film it did come off as reasonably brutal, at least as far as that rating can take you. I personally think they could have gone a bit further with the violence and kept a PG-13 though. I get the feeling most of that came from the fact that these are kids being killed, and less about what you see. I think a bit more gratuity would have helped the film's impact, but for being PG-13 it was well done. It's just hard to not compare it to the many other films with similar plots, all of them I remember being a hard R rating.

Of course the biggest selling point of any "saga" is the story. In a bit of a surprise, despite my problems concerning the Games themselves (which I'll get to), this is a story that I wouldn't mind seeing the rest of. The reasons for this aren't for the characters, but just the idea of where the plot is going to go next. I'm not invested in the plot so to speak, but I'm interested in the possibilities of where it goes next, if that makes sense.

As far as cast goes, I don't know. Jennifer Lawrence is/was an indie-circuit darling, and supposed to be this rocking Titan of Acting, but honestly for a good portion of the movie I found her to be fairly bland and uninteresting. Most of the time she just kind of stood there with her mouth hanging open looking like she was trying to remember whether or not she set the TiVo to record "Scrubs." It's one thing for Katniss (stupid name #38 for this film) to be scared and speechless but Lawrence just plays her so boring, with the exception of a handful of scenes where she's mad.

"Meh. I'll shoot you with this arrow. I guess."

That was actually the biggest problem for me with Katniss, was that she really didn't display much emotion at all. I kept waiting for her to go off the deep end, and she starts to, but that never really pans out. Even after she's watched her friend die in her arms, which would have been quite moving had it not been kind of forced, and she's had her "MENDOZZA!!!" moment, after that's done she really never gets too upset. What I had been hoping for was for Katniss to pick up her bow, say "All you bastards are dead" and reenact "Rambo: First Blood Part II." Instead she just has a good cry and goes home. Way to protagonize, protagonist.

And the whole time we're being told that Katniss is the great hope of these Games. She's the one that has the best shot at winning, even more so than the trained killers from the rich districts that volunteered for this thing, I'm guessing just because they want to stab something in the face. No, these guys are ranked lower than Katniss to succeed, because she shot an apple.

I got a much bigger kick out of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (stupid name #65) their mentor and former Hunger Games winner, who has turned into a slopping drunk to deal with the torment of helping send young people off to die. There's some real pain in his performance, and it was quite effective. Even Lenny Kravitz as their producer Cinna (#89) was actually quite good in a similar role. I also thought that the quiet fatalism of Josh Hutcherson as Peeta (#115) had a nice, quiet dignity about it, especially when he starts sabotaging his own chances to make Katniss look better, giving her theoretically better odds at surviving. I liked that, and it would have made for some pretty gripping and dramatic moments if "The Hunger Games" hadn't chickened out on itself.

Yeah, here's where I start having some problems not with the cast or the way the film is made, but the story itself. This could have been a brutal, tragic tale but it really just ends up playing it way too safe, and comes off as blatantly catering to the demographic that it's trying to ensnare. It's odd to say that considering how many young people get slaughtered, but it's the way they handle the ending that really kind of spoiled my experience a bit.

The whole point of these games is that there can be only one winner. Everyone else is going to die. That's the way it's been for 73 years up to this point, and to change it would be stupid, since the entire reason for the games to exist is subjugation of the districts being forced to supply these kids. To change the rules would make the regime look soft, which is against everything they're trying to do. Well, this may be spoiler-heavy for anyone who hasn't seen the movie or read the book, but all you have to do is remember that it's a movie for teens to realize that there's no way that "The Hunger Games" is having either the main character or her love interest die. Because you see, there can be more than one winner. Only there can't. Except when there can be.

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!! (except when there can totally be more than one)

They try and make it so that the guys running the Hunger Games kind of shoot themselves in the foot by implementing a "two-winner" special rule in an attempt to try and appease rioters in a district that (SHOCK!) had one of their young people killed in the Games, but it really doesn't make any sense. First of all, the entire reason the district was rioting was because one of their children died. But I crunched the numbers, and assuming that the "winning" rate between all the districts is statistically even, that particular district has lost roughly 138 kids over the years to the Hunger Games. Are you telling me that they only now care enough to riot? Was 139 just the final straw? It seems to be the case because it's only now that the regime is scared enough of this rioting to change the rules that have been in place for the better part of a century.

The second reason that doesn't make any sense is the fact that it's really a meaningless gesture for the regime to do for the district that is rioting because the rules are absurdly specific and transparently tailor-made for Katniss and Peeta, who aren't even from the rioting district. Who is this suppose to appease? You think that district is going to be totally okay with the fact that both of some other district's kids made it back when both of their kids are dead? What do they care at that point? They'll still be pissed off.

Thirdly, let's say that they actually succeeded in placating the rioting district with this two-winner amendment. That's rendered completely useless at the end because when Peeta and Katniss are the last ones standing, they revoke it anyway in a "MWAHAHAHAHA!!! WE'RE EVIL!!!" moment which is bashing-your-forehead-on-the-desk-stupid. Did they think the people that were mad weren't going to get mad AGAIN when you overturn the thing you did to make them not mad?

And finally, why is the regime even bothering in the first place with trying to make everyone happy? You have abducted children as young as 8 years old to FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT. I don't think any amount of PR is going to get around the fact that you are an evil, tyrannical bunch of douchebags. When the hell did the notion of doing someone else a solid ever seem like part of your business model?! I just have to keep going back to the question "Why do they care if people are happy?" They have to know that the districts hate them.

"Jennifer! I'm glad you're here! I think my wig is plotting against me, and I'm freaking out."

You would also think that a clearly advanced society would not be forced to do these barbaric acts to subjugate its people in the first place, since the technology they are using in the Games could easily be used to utterly crush any resistance immediately, considering that based on what I saw, they literally have the power to instantly create any damn thing they want. But given the fact that in the city they're pulling stuff out of the aether, while people in the districts appear to have never seen a flush toilet before, I'm not sure that a rebellion is a real threat to this government. It would be like the hordes of Mordor versus a country full of pandas. I think the pandas would surrender.

At least it wouldn't be a threat if they didn't have these comically villainous games which unsurprisingly do little except guarantee that the Districts are never going to not be thinking about rebelling. I guess I'm just not seeing the Big Picture of the plan here. I mean, it just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil. Although that may have to do with Donald Sutherland and his eyebrows.

When you look like a cartoon villain, I guess cartoonish villainy is inevitable.

This whole "changing the rules" thing really tainted my impression of the film. It came off as insultingly convenient, almost like they panicked halfway through the final act and were forced to pull something out of their asses to make it so they could both get out of this alive. While these are valid complaints to bring up, the reason for it lies in the fact that it's a movie for teens, and we can't have dark stuff happening to make it so the two attractive people don't hook up at the end. Of course the end of "The Hunger Games" implies that darker things are in store, but it still felt like a cop out.

On an up note, I did appreciate how Katniss and Peeta aren't really "together" at the end. That would have been the easy way to go, and while they dip their toe into those well-tred waters, it's not all the way there. It's more of a lie that's grown into something they both are contemplating making real, which is much better. But since one of the last things you see in the movie is Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Helmsworth staring intensely at each other across a crowd while she's holding hands with Josh Hutcherson, I'm guessing that "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" will involve a love triangle. Because we can't have a movie for teens without THAT. Heaven forbid.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I spent a lot of time complaining about the things in "The Hunger Games" that bugged me because I felt they took away from what was otherwise a pretty solid flick. Am I going to read the books? Probably not. Will I watch the others when they make them? Sure. Would I still rather be watching "Battle Royale?" Yup. Even so, Recommended.

Snow White and The Huntsman (2012)

Can one single aspect of a film ruin the entire experience? Is it possible to have one thing, one element of a movie be so bad, so truly retched, and so foul that nothing you can think of can justify its disregard?

I mean, Jar Jar Binks was bad, but can you in all honesty tell me that "Star Wars: Episode I" would have been any better without his inclusion? Well, the answer is "yes," but that doesn't mean that by excluding him, the movie would have suddenly become good as opposed to horrifying me to the very core of my soul. Would "Highlander 2" really have been saved after they took out "Zeist?" The Renegade Cut of the film showed us, "Of course not, you dolt." And Skids and Mudflap weren't in "Transformers 3," and that movie still sucked like a puncture wound to the lung. So it would seem that there's usually a bit more to it than just one thing.

But what insanity could possibly afflict a piece of cinema so completely, so fully, and in such an all-encompassing fashion as to be without hope?

 Oh. Oh god.

You know, I don't even know if I should even start with this. The fact that Kristen Stewart is a bad actress is fairly well done to death, and there's little that can be added to the argument. She's like moldy bread in that aspect. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that it sucks, and is something that should be promptly thrown away. However, there is a inexplicably large fan base of moldy bread enthusiasts who say that it's delicious and totally awesome and underrated.

I don't know why these people like moldy bread, but I have two theories that I'm working on. The first is that they were told by the writers of their favorite baked goods style fiction that moldy bread is totally awesome, and since they are such big fans of baked goods style fiction, they eat up whatever is given to them and say "yum." The second theory I have is that they are stupid.

However, there is a third possibility that there is some kind of benefit to moldy bread I have not discovered yet. I have a plan to test this theory, however. I think we should lock Kristen Stewart in a warm, moist cabinet somewhere until her desiccated remains produce penicillin.

This. This expression is the one she wears every. single. frame. of this film.

Upon seeing the trailer, "Snow White & The Huntsman" looked interesting to me at first. Although I'm a little tired of everything getting a "gritty" makeover lately, it seemed like a cool take on the classic fairy tale. And then Kristen Stewart's vacant, baggy-eyed, blank slate of a face showed up on screen to make me groan and instantly fear seeing it. But, the rest of the cast was made up of some pretty intense talent, so I figured that it was worth giving a shot.

What I ended up getting was an interesting conundrum that was pretty much exactly was I figured was going to happen. The movie was actually pretty good. In fact, everything about it was enjoyable, so much so that I would call it kind of awesome...

That is, everything except the main character.

This is the most egregious example I've seen of a movie with a lead character so wretched that they nearly bring the whole production down around them like a ruptured dam. Kristen Stewart gives a performance so wooden, so lifeless, and so uninterested that it becomes almost unwatchable any time she is on screen. She is a thumbtack in the tasty soup that is "Snow White & The Huntsman." She is the rat poison topping on the films otherwise delectable pizza. She is really is the worst actress in recent memory that I can think of, at least in mainstream Hollywood.

She just threw up in her mouth. She'll use that to convey emotion. She's not sure which one though, so she'll use it to convey ALL OF THEM.

But it wasn't only Stewart's terrible performance that I took issue with. My big issue was the character of Snow White herself, whom I will get to later.

"Snow White & The Huntsman" follows the classic story in a very loose fashion. Many of the basic ideas are still there, with an evil queen taking over the kingdom, and the princess Snow White is the only person who can stop her (more on THAT later). She escapes into exile and is helped by the 7 dwarfs, who join her in her fight to overthrow the queen. The Huntsman is a guy sent by the Queen to bring Snow White to her, but of course he betrays the Queen instantly because he can tell she's probably not the most scrupulous of people. Being an evil overlord of a country tends to lower the chances that people will trust you, after all.

The Queen is played by Charlize Theron, and my goodness, she is amazing. True, she acts hammier than a pig wrapped in bacon performing a Nicolas Cage monologue from "Deadfall," but there is something so intensely scary about her in this movie that she is probably the thing that people are going to remember most about it. One scene in particular that will serve for me as the quintessential moment for her character is the prerequisite monologue she gives during the final confrontation. As she is reviling in her own wickedness, she walks through a fire which begins burning her flesh, only to have it heal as she steps out again, like she's freaking Wolverine or something. It's an awesome effect in a movie with a lot of really good effects.

And mixed with the very well done backstory for the Queen, I had more emotional connection with her than I did for the blank slate that was Snow White.

Speaking of scary, Ian McShane, who is one of my favorite actors is also in "Snow White & The Huntsman," playing one of the dwarfs. I suppose he would be "Doc," although none of them have their old names. I honestly couldn't tell what any of their names were, however, since all of them were speaking in nearly undecipherable Scottish accents. There is a huge amount of talent among them, though. Aside from Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Ray Winstone, and the great Bob Hoskins, another one of my favorites, Nick Frost make up the cast of the dwarfs.

The effects used to make the dwarfs seem smaller also deserves mentioning as it was well done. I don't know if they used actually small people as stand ins or used CG to put the actor's faces over top of them, but it was all quite convincing. I was on the fence about the 7 dwarfs when I heard they were in this, but they ended up being the most enjoyable part of them film aside from Charlize Theron.

That is, until they gave Nick Frost and Ray Winstone a poop joke. Because that's dignified, especially during the climatic final battle scene. Nice timing there, movie.

Chris Hemsworth is also pretty sweet as the Huntsman, doing his best to channel his inner Colin Farrell. So overall the main cast is all quite good, of course with the exception of Stewart, and one other guy who deserves mentioning: Sam Spruell as Finn, the Queen's brother. Now, it's not that Spruell is necessarily bad, so to speak, it's just that...well, there's really no gentle way to say this so I guess I'm just going to have to come out and say it. He looks like Gary Busey dressed up as the Berries 'n Cream Lad.

Seriously, this is distracting.

With the cast being as overall strong as it is, the effects being quite well done, and the story being interesting and generally exciting, "Snow White & The Huntsman" is a pretty fun time, and it's really worth seeing just to see how much the movie does right. But that being said, now is the time I once again talk about the main character, and for once, I'm not going to talk about Kristen Stewart. This is talking about Snow White, and why I couldn't stand her as a character.

The problem with Snow White is that she is only exceptional because the story says she is exceptional. In this story, she is The Chosen One. She is the Kwisatz Haderach. She is Neo. She is any kind of messiah character you want to name. But the thing is, there is nothing exceptional about her besides that fact. And it's quite telling in the fact that she doesn't do one single solitary thing that any normal person couldn't have done (with one rather meaningless exception).

Most of the movie is simply Snow White being dragged around like a cardboard cutout or any kind of trophy you can name, while people struggle and fight and die around her, just so that she can make it. Her ascent to power is done on the backs of other people, without her doing much of anything besides showing up and going along for the ride.

And it's not like the movie didn't give them opportunity. I mentioned earlier the pointless scene were she does something special. It involves her going all Crocodile Dundee on a troll, because for some reason, possibly because it was in the Disney version, she has this spooky connection with animals. Now, do they actually do anything useful with that? Well, for that scene, yes, because she saves Chris Hemsworth's life, but at no point does that come back later. Why couldn't she have called on her animal friends to help in the final battle? A troll would have been a nice addition to their forces. But they don't do anything with the animals, which essentially makes that whole animal thing pointless.

 Hey, maybe you could use one of these things to fight for you. Just saying...

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is a scene early in the movie where a common peasant is captured and brought before the Queen. He manages to stab her in the stomach with a dagger, which she pulls out with no blood spilling from her wound. She is unharmed. Now spoiler alert here, but guess how Snow White kills the Queen? Take a guess.

She stabs her in the stomach with a dagger. Only this time, it works and she dies, simply because of the fact that it was Snow White that did it. This literally is the most significant thing that Snow White does in the entirety of the film, and some muddy backwoods hick did it an hour and a half earlier in the film. Only I guess he wasn't good enough for the movie.

This whole fatalistic view of the characters really rubs me the wrong way. It's so boring, and it's such a cop-out unless there is a character produced that is worthy of that predetermined destiny of "savior." It would be one thing if you told me that John McClane was destined to defeat Hans Gruber at Nakatomi Tower. It would be one thing if you told me that Conan was blessed by Crom to avenge himself against Tulsa Doom. Paul Atreides, Luke Skywalker, and even Harry Potter had a prophecy attached to them. And they all DID SOMETHING TO FULFILL IT.

Snow White just goes along for the ride and takes what everyone else says she should have. Just because the movie says she deserves it. What a crock of exceptionalist crap.

AND CLOSE YOUR DAMN MOUTH, YOU SLACK JAWED HACK!!!

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Snow White & The Huntsman" is not a bad movie, despite my complains about protagonists being worthy of the title of "main character." There is a lot in here to enjoy, and what it does well, it does very well. But be warned, if you can't stand Kristen Stewart, and recognize her for the blight on acting that she is, this will do nothing to change your mind about her. She nearly ruins the entire film. Nearly. It just goes to show how good the rest of it is when it manages to save itself from her awfulness. Recommended.

Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy (2011)

This is going to be brief. In fact, I'm debating whether or not to even write anything about "Tinker, Tailor, BlahBlah, Whatever." The reason for this is simple: It holds a special distinction.

Now, I've seen a LOT of movies. I've sat through some vile, vile crap. But there are very few movies I've hit the "STOP" button on. I've fast forwarded through some, true, but very seldom have I just not been able to even bring myself to chapter skip to the end. I could probably count them on one hand.

Well, now I might need to use both thumbs.

I couldn't make it through this one, guys. I just couldn't. I'm shocked, honestly, because I really like Gary Oldman, but good gravy was this bad. And it wasn't even the good kind of bad where I could make fun of it. It was just BORING.

What puzzles me is that I've actually sat through movies that were more boring and dull and plodding than this one. For crying out loud, I sat through "Tree of Life," although that was a close one. I think main difference is that while a movie like "Tree of Life" is mindbogglingly boring and dumb, at least I "got it." It was a pretentious art flick. I got it.

What "Tinky Winky Dipsy Po" is though, is a spy movie. And I HATE spy movies. Unless the spy movie's poster contains the phrase "James Bond returns in..." I hate them. And while I can stomach spy movies to a degree, the plot of "Tipsy Turvey Drunk Stupid" is so murky, so understated, so cryptic and so meandering that every 5 minutes or so, I was forced to pause the film and recap the movie out loud to the best of my comprehension, just so that I could try and figure out what, if anything, the scene I was watching was talking about. And most of the time, I was unsuccessful.

After a while, I was ready to crack. It seemed like I had been watching this movie for 3 and a half hours, and at no point did I approach anything resembling a firm grasp on who was who or what they were doing. So finally, in desperation, I did what I always do when I'm not enjoying a movie: I hit the "select" button on my PS3 remote to see how much time was left.

I wasn't even an hour into the film. There was still about 60% of the movie left to go.

With a mighty roar of "Are you FRAKKING kidding me?!" I hit the stop button. I'm not proud of this, but it had to be done. I have better things to do with my life.

I know as a self-styled critic, it is important to watch movies. But there was really no reason for me to keep watching "Wynken, Blynken, Nod." It's every lousy spy movie I've ever seen, only on a morphine drip. It's so slow that "2001: A Space Odyssey" would lap it. You could clock the edits with an egg timer. Characters just seem to appear out of nowhere and start talking like they're vitally important, when I didn't have the slightest clue who any of them were. And finally, after seeing that I wasn't even halfway through, I realized there was no coming back. And I didn't care.

THE BOTTOM LINE - Skip, skip, skip, dear GOD skip it. The only conceivable way I could in good conciseness recommend this movie is if you are just a die-hard sheep who cannot physically get enough spy movies. If you thought something like "The Good Sheppard" was interesting or something...maybe. I just could not find the motivation to spend another hour of my life watching this crap.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

::sigh::

I remember when Steven Spielberg used to be awesome. Do you? "Jurassic Park?" "Hook?" "Saving Private Ryan?" "Jaws?" "Schindler's List?" "Raiders of The Lost Ark?" Good times.

Now he seems to be a parody of himself. The soul seems to have been sucked out of his work now. Between "A.I." and "Minority Report", "War of The Worlds," "Warhorse"  and most (not me) would say "Kingdom of The Crystal Skull" it seems like you could replace Spielberg with a robot at this point and not notice much difference. To be fair, he has always, and will always have an amazing eye for incredible visuals. The man knows what he's doing, not doubt, but his films seemed to be more heartfelt before. Now it seems he's making movies because that's what he's supposed to do.

Then again, it's amazing he has time to direct anything in between all the movies he produces. I mean, just take a look at the number of things Spielberg has produced on his IMDB page. It's over 100, and a third of them seem to be in the last 5 years. It's insane.

"The Adventures of Tintin" looked like another Spielberg movie that felt very safe and formulaic, and it was. Don't kid yourself - even with all the flashy visuals and action and explosions, this is a kid's movie. Not that there's anything wrong with that by its nature, but I know Spielberg can make good movies, and I feel this kids fluff is tremendously beneath him.

Kids will love this stuff, though. Undoubtedly they will. I cannot take that away from the movie. In those terms, "The Adventures of Tintin" does exactly what it set out to do, and succeeded quite well. There's lots of shiny things to look at, lots of swinging around on stuff, lots of prat-falls and a drunk guy acting really silly because drunk people are hilarious and not to be pitied. In fact, the captain being drunk quite literally saves the day on more than one occasion, and the heroes literally could not have been successful in their endeavors had the captain not been a hopeless lush.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions and thoughts from that.

"Please, Captain. I know your liver is the size of a boogie board and the consistency of a used grease rag, but for the good of the plot and sake of the world, we need you to shotgun that last sixer of Pabst...

So it's a kids movie. Whatever. That's fine. I'll stop griping about it, with the exception of one last thing that just irritated the crap out of me: Tintin speaking his interior monologues and doing the detective work in his head out loud. This...was nails on a chalk-board for me.

Just so you know what I'm talking about, every time Tintin is thinking about something...ANYTHING, he has to work it out in his head, so he does so out loud. Now this is obviously a hold over from its origins as a comic strip, where there were limited ways of showing what he was thinking, but when it's in a movie it just comes off as obnoxious and honestly making Tintin look like he needs some mental help because he seriously looks like a crazy person rambling to himself about nonsense. But how else could they possibly get plot exposition out there for all us dummies in the audience?

Oh right. He could just think it. Naturally.

He's basically this guy.

What blew my mind watching the opening credits (which admittedly were quite well done) was the cast that has been assembled here. Jamie Bell is the lead, but it also has Daniel Craig, the amazing Andy Serkis, freaking Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Mackenzie Crook (the pirate with the wooden eye in "Pirates of The Carribean"), and Toby Jones! It's produced by Peter Jackson and the screenplay was co-written by Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish, who are some of my favorite people making movies right now.

Holy. Crap. That's an awesome amount of talent. And to be fair, once again giving credit where credit is due, the cast does do a good job.

Of course, you can't really see them. You see, "The Adventures of Tintin" is CG. Why? I have no idea. It's filmed like a normal, traditional movie. Yes, there are stunts going on that are pretty outrageous but it's not like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit," where these things couldn't exist in anything other than animated form. These are all people, and they are made to look fairly realistic, at least as much as the style of the characters can look realistic. It's actually kind of creepy, however. Some things should not be seen in realistic rendering.

What this ends up doing is giving a sense that there was no reason at all for this movie to be CG. Cast it in live-action and it would have still worked. The character models are already made to look a bit like their real-life counterparts. What's the big deal? There was nothing to justify it not being live-action. Heck, it might have made it better in making it not so cartoony and kid-oriented. Or maybe it's because I just want to see one movie where I get to see Andy Serkis' face!

I shall leave on this one final note of rage, because despite the fact that overall, I found "The Adventures of Tintin" to be kind of boring and annoying, there was one thing that legitimately made me mad. The rest of it was just kind of forgettable, but the one thing I can't overlook is the absolute waste of an incredible talent: Cary Elwes.

You see this guy? Right up there? Yeah. He's the man. What? Don't recognize him?

How about now?

Yeah that's what I thought. Cary Elwes is the bomb, and one of my favorite actors. I was so excited when his name appeared in the opening credits. He was listed as "Pilot" on IMDB, which I also had up and running, so I knew when a plane appeared, I would see him.

Well, the plane finally appeared! It gets shot down, and has to make a water landing. Oh man! He's getting out of the plane! He's gonna say something! Ok, he said something! What was it? Was that a French accent? Ok, they're near Morocco, that makes sense. Was that Cary? It sounded like him. Ok, now he's captured. They gonna make him talk? Is Cary gonna get to be all defiant and snooty? Wait, why isn't he saying anything? Why is he in the back of the plane just sitting there? It's been like 10 minutes, why hasn't he had another line? Ok so he's parachuting out of the plane now. And he's gone. Are we going to follow him? What happened to him?

::an hour later...credits roll::

HE NEVER COMES BACK?! WHY DID CARY ELWES ONLY GET ONE GOD DAMN LINE?!?!

One line. I couldn't believe it. You get freaking Westley from "Princess Bride" in your movie and you give him ONE LINE?!?! What's the damn point? How much did he get paid for that? He could have done that role on his lunch break! Wait, screw that. He could have done it in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee! WAIT, SCREW THAT! He could have done it in the time it takes for him to take a leak!!!

That blatant waste of incredible talent was by far the most upsetting thing to me in this otherwise lukewarm outing, and will probably be the thing I remember most about it, because of the shear incredulous nature of my reaction.

Inconceivable.

Joo kip using dat word...

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Adventures of Tintin" doesn't suck. But it's a kids movie, and I'm just not interested in that. If you have kids, they'll have a blast, and you won't want to stab yourself in the jugular just to stop the pain, because it's not bad. But I have better things to do with my time. I just don't care, and I want Spielberg to make a movie that floors me again. Is that so much to ask? Recommended, I guess.