The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Movie Review

Peter Jackson reclaims my faith in him in this fun, well-paced film far superior to the original. 

Peter Jackson is back! You have no idea how great it is to say that. After failures like The Lovely Bones and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappoint-sorry, "Journey", one of my favorite directors is back at the top of his game. Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth in this exciting adventure. Martin Freeman reprises his role as the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins and Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf the Grey, both characters continue their quest to reclaim Erebor. I won't sugar-coat it, the first Hobbit movie was not what I expected. Seeing as how the Lord of the Rings trilogy remains to be some of my favorite movies ever, I had high hopes for my return to Middle Earth. I hadn't read the Hobbit book, and I was, and still am, a bit concerned about the fact that they extended it into a trilogy. Lord of the Rings is a 3-book series at 400 pages a piece, and the Hobbit is one book with 300 pages. You don't make that book into a trilogy. Because of this, the first movie is incredible boring. It took a very long time for the plot to kick in, the effects were embarrassingly bad on occasion, and it made me worry Peter Jackson has lost his touch. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is what I really wanted An Unexpected Journey to be. It was really well written, well paced, and I've come to the conclusion that Martin Freeman is the perfect actor to play Bilbo. However, the effect were still a bit disappointing. There is one scene in particular involving the Necromancer and Gandalf that would make one shake one's head in disbelief. However, such a disappointment in effects can be easily forgiven by the inclusion of the dragon towards the end, Smaug. Voiced by the talented Benedict Cumberbatch, the dragon Smaug is what really makes this movie great. The effects were outstanding and the dragon himself was well-written. He was frightening, menacing, smart, and extremely intimidating. Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug improves upon all the things that were disappointing about the first Hobbit film. The writing and pacing was better, the acting was good, and the dragon was perfectly done. There were a few scenes that included some truly terrible special effects, but the scenes of great fun and action make up for it and

then some. Final Rating: B+

American Hustle Movie Review

Complex, Silly, and very, very 70's. 

From director David O'Russell, the mind behind Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter, comes perhaps his greatest achievement yet. American Hustle brings together the main cast of O'Russell's last two films, including Christian Bale and Amy Adams (The Fighter), and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook). The film revolves around con man Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and his partner in crime Sydney Porter (Adams) as they are forced into working with deranged FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper). DiMaso's main intention in assembling this con team is to take down corrupt politicians and powerbrokers, starting with passionate and honorable New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito. The casting for this movie is brilliant, all of these excellent actors are at the top of their game. Bale has once again disappeared into his character and delivered a completely convincing performance. Amy Adams once again convinces me of her incredible talent, and Bradley Cooper really sells it as the unhinged FBI agent. Not only were the extremely talented leads brilliant, but even the supporting cast. For instance, Academy Award Winner Jennifer Lawrence as Rosenfeld's insane wife, Rosalyn. She and director David O'Russell have proven to be a very talented movie duo, and Lawrence gives a performance almost as awe-inspiring as her Oscar-Winning performance in Silver Linings Playbook. While Lawrence's performance was definitely a scene-stealing one, I feel like it was the cameo performance of legend Robert De Niro that was really show-stopping. De Niro hasn't had the best cinematic luck lately, so I'm glad to see him work with O'Russell after working on Silver Linings Playbook. Hustle definitely had a Scorsese-esque/Goodfellas feeling to it, and his appearance only elevates that. While the acting was top-notch from every single cast member, I think the direction and writing are what really make this film. I read that O'Russell let the actors have a lot of room to improvise, and you can really feel it through the realistic, but unbalanced, tone the film expresses. 

That writing/directing decision is what made the movie what it is. Now, that's not necessarily a good thing. While the improvisation did make the feature feel more realistic, it also made it, like I just stated, very unbalanced. The plot slows down, speeds up, and then slows down again seemingly at random. Plot and structure are very important to a movie, while I do appreciate a good character-driven film, consistency is very important. It's hard for a movie which has such inconsistent characters to be character-driven. The story behind this movie is a fascinating one, and perhaps deserved to be told in a more procedural, structured fashion. But to David O'Russell, plot doesn't matter, characters are what matter. Once one understands that is the film's real intention, the final product can be appreciated more. Overall, American Hustle's tone is a bit unstable and deranged, but so are the characters O'Russell has created. All the actors do a great job in their roles, and keep you entertained for most of the two hour run time.. Final Rating: B

12 Years a Slave Movie Review

Slavery's Schindler's List, and deserving of all the appreciation and praise. 

From Steve McQueen, director of one-word, underrated masterpieces such as Hunger and Shame, comes this slavery epic starring Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender. The film follows Solomon Northup, a free man living with his family in New York, after he is tricked, kidnapped, and then sold into slavery. For 12 years he was degraded and tortured- both physically and mentally. His terrifying journey begins with working for Master Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), a kind slave owner; as kind as a slave holder can be. Solomon's journey then leads to him to owner Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a crazed, overly-relegious, cruel owner. Solomon must muster up all the strength he has and never give up hope, for if he surrenders and accepts the position he is in, even if he survives he will never live. Back in 1993, Steven Spielberg directed the cinematic masterpiece Schindler's List. The incredible film took an unflinching look at the Holocaust and the sheer brutality of the Nazis. The film took home 7 Academy Awards, including Best Director and Best Film of the Year. Since then, many movies have taken a realistic, terrifying look at the Holocaust; for instance, The Boy with the Stripped Pajamas and Inglourious Bastards. However, no Holocaust film has lived up to the unwavering storytelling of Schindler's List. 12 Years a Slave is not about the Holocaust, but it's aggressive look at slavery is just as awe-inspiring. I have been somewhat of a fan of director Steven McQueen for a while now, even since I experienced Hunger. His directing is unlike anything I've ever seen, the stillness and steadiness of some of his movies is hauntingly beautiful. 

The best thing about McQueen is that he can really get amazing, realistic performances from his actors. From the extremely underrated Chiwetel Ejiofor, to a cameo performance from Brad Pitt, the ensemble in this film was phenomenal. Everyone had an important part to play and everyone did an outstanding job, particularly Ejiofor. Before watching this movie, I had quite the conundrum when it came to who should win best actor. Tom Hanks did an amazing job as Captain Phillips in Captain Phillips, it looked like Matthew Mcaughnahy is continuing his incredible career improvement in Dallas Buyer's Club, and I'm one of those people who thinks it's absolutely ridiculous that Leonardo DiCaprio hasn't won an Academy Award yet, so I was hoping for the best with The Wolf of Wallstreet. I had no idea who should win, now I do. Chiwetel's performance as Solomon Northup was undoubtedly the best this whole year. He is incredibly powerful and sympathetic, and he makes you hope and pray the character will survive this horrific ordeal. The amount of fear and turmoil he can convey with just a single look is mesmerizing. And I highly doubt he is the only actor who will bring home the golden statue for this movie. Michael Fassbender, playing the ruthless Edwin Epps, also delivers one of the best performances this year.

He has some competition with Jared Leto in Dallas Buyer's Club, but his chances are still pretty good. He's a villan who lacks any sort of redemption, much like Ralph Fienne's performance in Schindler's List. His purpose in the movie is for the audience to hate and despise him, and it's safe to say they achieved their objective. Then there is novice actress Lupita Nyong'o, playing Patesy, a slave on the Epps plantation that Edwin has an attraction towards. Her performance, even though she only shows up half way through the movie, is one of the most memorable. Every single actor did an astonishing job, and they all deserve to be recognized for it. Then we get to the writing, one of the most crucial parts of any motion picture. At first, when I heard that the screenwriter was going to be the same writer of Red Tails and Undercover Brother, I was terrified. Both films were terribly written and it would be unfortunate for a movie with this amount of potential to fall apart due to an inconsistent script. Luckily, the writing was superb as well. The characters were well fleshed out and the pacing was hauntingly realistic. Solomon Northup's true story is an incredible one full of courage and strength, it's nice to see the film adaptation does it justice. Overall, 12 Years A Slave is the quintessential slavery epic. Thanks to Steve McQueen's harrowing, realistic direction, the lead actor's powerful and heart wrenching performance, 12 Years A Slave is, without a doubt, the most incredible film of 2013, and one of the best ever made. It's fair to say it more than deserves such a prestigous title. Final Rating: A

Thor: The Dark World Movie Review

Nothing new, which isn't such a bad thing.

Thor returns to the big screen after the events that occurred in The Avengers. It starts with Loki back home, preparing to face Asgardian justice for the crimes he committed in New York. Now, Thor is faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, so he now must embark on his most dangerous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all. Thor: The Dark World is the second feature film of Phase Two in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, following Iron Man 3. The entire original main cast of the original reprise their roles, including Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, and Anthony Hopkins. There are also some new cast members, like former-Doctor Who actor Christopher Eccleston. The cast aren't the only new additions to the movie. With director Kenneth Branagh (5-time Oscar Nominee famous for great Shakespearean adaptations such as Hamlet and Henry V) no longer in the the director's chair, it's Alan Taylor (famous for his work on popular shows such as Game of Thrones and The Sopranos) who gets behind the camera. At first, this direction change was nerve-racking. Branagh is a tremendous director, and Taylor is primarily a TV-director for hire. Luckily, Taylor didn't screw this up. It may have been the disappointment I had with Iron Man 3, but I really didn't have high expectations for this film. I came to terms with the fact that no Superhero movie, be that DC or Marvel, is going to live up to the Avengers. 

Even though this fact still stands, Thor 2 was a lot better than expected. The action scenes were a lot better than the ones in the original. Even though Alan Taylor is primarily a director for the small screen, nothing about the scale of the action felt small. The biggest down-side to this movie was the comedy. The Avengers was a very funny movie, but it was only funny when the levity was necessary. Thor 2 almost felt like a comedy, but with a lot of great, well-crafted action sequences. If they just would have toned down the humor a bit, the movie could have been a lot better. That, and if they could have improved the plot. The fact is, when we have a cinematic universe that includes something as epic as The Avengers, everything else feels extremely filler. The same happened with the two Iron Man sequels, when you have a movie about an individual Avenger that isn't an origin story, it feels like the only point is to kill time until the next team-up epic. It seems like every action movie nowadays is about the earth being potentially destroyed by some malicious villain and the good guy needs to stop him- which he always does after a CGI-filled 10 minute battle. It's nothing new or groundbreaking when it comes to the concept, it's the execution that really matters. And I'm happy to say that, overall, it is well-executed. The action is still good, the acting and writing were fine, the tone towards the end is a little darker which is appreciated. Overall, it's nothing unprecedented in contemporary cinema, but Thor: The Dark World is filled with enough high-flying action to entertain the masses. Final Rating: B

Breaking Bad Series Review

The Best Drama Series Ever Made.

Breaking Bad follows the events that occur after Walter White, a brilliant yet underachieving chemist, discovers he has lung cancer and has approximately two years to left to live. So, in order to maintain his family's economic well-being after he passes, he chooses to team up with his former chemistry student, Jesse Pinkman, to cook and sell the world's purest crystal meth. Walter White soon learns the accuracy of the proverb "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." There are so many great things to say about Breaking Bad, and one of the few shows out there that I have almost nothing bad to say. The directing, the writing, and especially the acting are all superb. Walter White, played by 3-time Emmy Winner Bryan Cranston, is one of the most brilliantly crafted TV characters of all time.Creator Vince Gilligan has stated plenty of times the the idea that this show would revolve around was taking Mr. Chips (Good-Bye, Mr. Chips), and turning him into Scarface. It's fair to say that transition was completed, and with remarkable realism and gradualness. He goes from being an incredibly shy and scared High School teacher, to becoming the world's best meth cook and savage dealer.

His character isn't the only masterfully crafted one in this show. Jesse Pinkman, played by 2-Time Emmy Award Winner Aaron Paul, is also an incredibly developing, entertaining character. He too undergoes incredible character development; going from stoner, High School drop-out, to becoming one of the most tragic and sympathy-receiving characters in the show. Then we have Skylar, the character hardly anyone has sympathy for. Just to get it out of the way, Skylar is a very annoying character. Actress Anna Gunn does a fantastic job portraying the irritating character, especially in the show's last season. Everyone else in the main cast does there part perfectly, from klepto-purple-obsessed-maniac Marie Shrader and her husband, ASAC Hank Shrader, to other great supporting characters like goofy criminal lawyer Saul Goodman and Mike Ehrmantraut played by the incredibly talented Jonathan Banks. However, with the exception of Cranston and Paul, it was Giancarlo Esposito, playing Gustavo Fring, that shined the most.

As seen in the clip, Gus is pretty awesome. Esposito's performance as Gus delivers on so many levels; making Gus one of the most menacing and well-written antagonist in both TV and film. Writing was another great thing about this show. Not just are the characters extremely well-written, but there are so many jaw-dropping moments in this series that you are always sitting at the edge of your seat. Unpredictability made this show the suspense juggernaut it is today, the truly amazing show it is today. I've seen so many shows in my life and have loved so many as well. However, no show made me fell the way Breaking Bad did. The acting was perfect and realistic, especially from Bryan Cranston. His emotional powerhouse performance every episode was extraordinary, making him one of the best actors in television, and rightfully so. Everything in this show was perfectly executed and put together. Those who have not seen this show have no idea what they are missing. Breaking Bad is the best drama TV show ever. Final Rating- A+

Carrie Movie Review

Would You go to prom with Carrie?

From director Kimberly Pierce, director of cult favorites such as Boys Don't Cry and Stop-Loss, comes this film adaptation of Stephen King's spine-chilling horror classic Carrie, marking the 2nd attempt at remaking the classic 1976 Brian De Palma thriller with the same name. The plot is the same as the first two, Carrie is a shy, awkward teen living under the roof of her religious, maniacal mother. Despite her realizing her telekinetic abilities, she lives a life under the radar. Until one day, the abused 17 year old girl is pushed too far after a High School prom prank that goes terribly wrong. The quality of this film is relative. If you compare this remake to the 2002 counterpart, this movie is very well-crafted. The 2002 re-imagining was poorly-done and it's appearance did not hide the fact that it is a made-for-TV movie, with a made-for-TV budget. When compared to that adaptation, this movie is good. However, once compared to the original, it's a much different story. After watching critically reviled remakes such as Psycho (1998), The Fog (2003), The Wicker Man (2006), Halloween (2007) Prom Night (2008), Friday the 13th (2009), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), it became an unspoken rule to never expect modern day remakes to surpass their originals (I say 'modern day' in order to accommodate John Carpenter's 1982 classic The Thing which, of course, was a remake of the 1950's horror film The Thing from Another World). Many remakes have been above average, for instance, Zack Snyder's 2004 remake Dawn of the Dead. It may not have been as good as George Romero's classic, but it still does a good job. Carrie fits in that category best. This adaptation has a lot of things going for it. Mainly, the cast is superb. There is, of course, Chloe Grace Mortez as the iconic Carrie character, but the performance that stands out the most is that of Julianne Moore. Her portrayal of the religious nut-job Margret White very well may be the best to date. The supporting cast was satisfactory as well. From up-and-comers Portia Dobuleday and Alex Russell, to seasoned actors such as Judy Greer and the criminally under-appreciated Barry Shabaka Henley. Of course, the other main highlight of the movie is the story line. There is a reason this book has been made into a movie this many times. The plot is tragic, somewhat relatable, and the themes of bullying are as relevant in today's society as ever. Most of what I have to say about this movie is pretty positive. It is well-paced, well-scored, generally well-acted. The first three-fourths of the movie are actually pretty fun to watch. As an audience member you already know what is going to happen in the end. The blood will fall and all hell will break loose. You might think that knowing the outcome may take away from the enjoyment this movie has to offer, but it really doesn't. In fact, it gives you a sense of security that allows you to just sit back and relax. Then we reach the climax. Carrie is called up to the stage and we all know what is going to happen next. Not only is this scene important because it is the pay off to the whole movie, but it's important because it is one of the most iconic scenes in horror movie history. It's up there with The Exorcist head twirl, The Shining's "Here's Johnny", Misery's ankle crush, and Psycho's killer shower scene. It's safe to say that this scene is very crucial to how this film is generally received by audiences. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it disappoints. Once the pig's blood comes down on Carrie, you are ready for the bloody revenge she dispatches upon her tormentors. You're ready for the horror and suspense of the scene, but then you get this instead. Maybe it was too high of expectations, but the prom scene was a disappointment. For one, it was way too short. I don't really know the exact time both prom scenes were, but I wouldn't be surprised if this scene was at least 1 minute and a half to 2 minutes shorter than the original. This is the payoff to the whole movie and it felt like they just glossed over it. The other thing that made me dislike the scene was the terrible GCI. I realize that this is the 21st century, so a movie is expected to have crazy special effects which is fine, but these effects were cringe-worthy. It was disappointing. Overall, the first 3 quarters of this movie were good, but the pivotal scene of the whole film fell short, making everything after forgettable. Final Rating- B-

Captain Phillips Review

Join Captain Richard Phillips as he fights against Somalian Pirates

From Paul Greengrass, director of the Bourne Trilogy and United 93, comes this true story that follows ship captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking of the US-Flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first cargo ship to be hijacked in over two hundred years. When I think of this movie, one particular moment stands out. It's not the intense moment when the pirates latch on to the ship, it's not even the mesmerizing, traumatizing performance of Tom Hanks at the end of the movie (which did leave me speechless). For me, the aspect I'll have great respect for was the beginning of this movie. It starts with Captain Phillips and his wife getting in the car and driving to the ship dock. On the car ride there, they begin talking about their every day problems. They're worrying about their son who is not really applying himself in school, etc. Then comes the next shot. The next scene takes place in Somali and shows this broken down, poor town filled with starving people. In this scene we meet our antagonist(?), Muse. The reason I love this directing choice is because it's a great way to set the story. The juxtaposition of Phillip's problems and the problems of citizens of a 3rd world country was brilliant. It starts off with showing the audience the aspect that makes this movie so appealing, there aren't necessarily good guys or bad guys. It's not as black and white as some other movies lately, which is always fun to watch. Even though that scene is the one that stands out to me, the film is not short on great moments. Like I stated earlier, the scene in which the pirates latch on to the ship is incredibly intense. You don't have to really know what happened in real life to know the outcome. The pirates latch, they take over the ship, and the rest is history. Even though you know what happens, your heart still pounds out of your chest. The actors who portrayed the pirates were another highlight of this movie. Novice actors Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdirahman, Faysal Ahmed, and Mahat Ali all deliver great performances, performances that made it seem like they've been in this business for a long, long time. Once the pirates board the ship, this movie gets real. You feel the tension between the Captain and the pirates, the writing, directing, and particularly acting made the hijacking scene feel extremely real. The film was going great so far, but then it stumbled a bit after it's sprinting start. The crew turn the tables on the pirates, they negotiate and the pirates decide to take the money in the safe and just leave. Before they do, however, they take Captain Phillips with them in a sealed lifeboat with the intention of keeping him for ransom. This is when the film really slows down. I take pride in saying I've only fallen asleep once in a movie; that was The Phantom Menace. Now my incredible record is tarnished. I regret to say I actually feel asleep for a good 20-30 minutes in this movie. The concept of the hostage being in close quarters with the pirates is intense and I'm sure when (if?) Richard was really in that situation tensions were high, and probably not as boring as it was to watch on screen. Seeing as how I was unconscious, I can't really critic the middle of the movie. I can only critic the last 30 minutes, which felt like receiving an enormous adrenaline shot to the heart. Once the Navy came into the picture the scale of this movie expanded tremendously. You really begin to feel the high stakes and the unquestionable importance of stopping these terrorists and retrieving the Captain. In the end, Captain Phillips is a riveting and powerfully realistic portrayal of bravery and courage. Even though the film gets a bit clunky and slow in the middle, director Paul Greengrass finishes off his hostage epic with such intensity brought by enthusiastic edits, a powerful soundtrack, and a mesmerizing performance by the whole ensemble especially the master himself, Tom Hanks. Final Rating: A-

Gravity Review

How hard would you fight to keep breathing?

From visionary director Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men), comes this intense space drama starring Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, and literally no one else. The film follows a medical engineer and an astronaut who work together in order to survive after an accident leaves them adrift in space. They lose contact with their home base, they begin running low on Oxygen, and dangerous debris from a broken shuttle is rapidly descending towards the two. Tethered to nothing but each other, the two begin there voyage to a Chinese shuttle, the only way to survive. The premise is pretty straightforward, the execution, however, is one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. I, and no one else, can stress the amount of intensity this film delivers. I've said before that I have only experienced a movie bringing me to the edge of my seat twice, one with the Argo and then Rush. Gravity failed to bring me to the edge of my seat, it tore me off the edge. I can not stress this enough, watch this movie in IMAX 3D. Personally, I hate 3D. I like the concept of feeling like I'm in the movie, but frankly all 3D has done was distract me and take a few extra dollars out of my pocket. If you are ever going to watch a movie in 3D, make it Gravity. You really feel like you are in space, as ridiculous as that may sound, and that feeling of actually being there is also achieved through the spectacular special effects. I'm one of those people who didn't like Avatar; frankly, if I wanted to watch a 2 1/2 hour video game...no, I would never want to watch a 2 1/2 hour video game. The Visual Effects in Gravity didn't make me feel like I was in a video game, like I said before, I actually felt like I was in space. The pacing is also one of the highlights of this visual masterpiece. The first 10-15 minutes or so is one shot, which is amazing. The thought of a shot that long may seem boring, but the effects this movie delivers makes the 10 minute shot one of the most fascinating shots in movie history. But once there are cuts and the debris begins hitting the shuttle, the amount of suspense is immeasurable. Of course, even with all of these great special effects, the movie wouldn't be the same without the mesmerizing powerhouse performance Sandra Bullock delivers. I'll be honest here, Ryan Stone isn't the most developed, complex movie character. We don't delve very deep into her background, all we know is that her daughter past away. Even though we don't really know Stone, for some reason you root for her more than any other character in any other movie. You want her to survive this, she is so strong and keeps fighting even though she doesn't know what she's fight for. She has such heart and such strength that seeing her in these certain-death situations makes your heart pound like never before.  Overall: Gravity is quite honestly one of the most mesmerizing cinematic achievements ever. Star Sandra Bullock delivers a great, powerful, sympathetic performance as Ryan Stone. Even though the character is not as lifelike as the visual effects, you still find yourself rooting for her to survive. Final Rating- A-

Rush Review

Fast-Paced, slick, thrilling, and entertaining. Hemsworth goes from a hammer to a Formula 1 race car. 

From Ron Howard, Oscar-Winning Director of great films such as A Beautiful Mind, Frost/Nixon, and Apollo 13, comes this sports drama that surpasses all other films this year in every way. Not only is Rush the best movie this year, which it definitely is, but it also happens to be the best sports drama ever made in my eyes. Let me start off with saying I'm not a real race car kind of fella. The sport has never intrigued me; it's really kinda plain. So, naturally, a movie about two race car drivers and their feud wasn't a film that topped my watch list. Thank god I gave it a chance. You don't have to be a race car driving fan in order to like this movie, you just have to like good drama, well thought out characters, and flawless direction; which this film has and then some. Ron Howard has always been one of my favorite directors of all time (yes, I forgave him for The Dilemma), and seeing him put together this masterfully crafted film is encouraging. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and no matter how good a movie is, there are always one or two scenes in it that I would have preferred was left out. Rush is one of those rare movies that lacks those kinds of scenes. Every scene is relevant, and each scene is well-paced. This movie does NOT drag on. Every single scene is probably under 2 minutes, it gets straight to the point. All traits found in a well-directed motion picture. The two leads do a great job as well. Going in, I had never even heard of the names James Hunt or Niki Lauda. The commercials heavily implied that their rivalry was infamous and renowned, yet I've never once heard of these two guys. Yet, coming out of the theater, you feel like you've been following this rivalry for decades. They really feel like flesh and blood characters; they have understandable motivations and interesting philosophies in life that were bound to clash. While all of the acting, directing, and writing were great, there was one particular aspect to Rush that truly stood out- The driving. Like I said before, I've never watched Formula 1 race car driving or any kind of race car driving for that matter. The concept is very dull and tame, but that is definitely not the case here. There was something about the cinematography, the slow-mo shots, the music; it all came together so perfectly that even before the wheels start turning you were breathless. I've always heard the expression that a movie could "keep you at the edge of your seat". In all my movie-watching experience, that expression only qualified in 2 different movies. 2012 Best Picture-Winning Drama Argo was the first time a movie literally brought me to the edge of my seat, and I'm happy to say that Rush is that second experience. Overall, Rush is a very well put-together motion picture filled with interesting characters, intense and entertaining sequences, and stunning cinematography/directing. A.K.A.- Why you go to the movies. Final Grade - A-

Prisoners Review

What Makes A Good Movie?

This may be the hardest movie I had to watch this whole year. No, not like how Rapture-Palooza was hard to watch, nothing can be THAT painful to endure. Prisoners, starring Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello and Paul Dano, centers around the abduction of two little girls. The parents don't know where they are, the police aren't having much luck, and the only lead to go on is the owner of an RV the kids were playing on before they vanished. Unfortunately, the owner (Paul Dano), has the IQ of a 10 year old. None of the chargers will stick so, naturally, they have to let him go after 48 hours. That plot already is very dramatic and upsetting. Unfortunately for the audience, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Now the father of one of the little girls (Jackman), convinced the suspect is the abductor, decides to take the law into his own hands and kidnaps the mentally-challenged man, willing to do whatever it takes to get the truth out of him. The question that was in my head after seeing this was- What makes a good movie? When I think of all of my favorite films- Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, The Usual Suspects- I see a pattern. Movies are best when they tell a story that evolves. The story grows, the characters grow, the plot is an interesting, unique one that deserves to be told. Prisoners is a different story. The only thing this movie does is show how losing a child can completely ruin your life and the life of your loved ones. Don't be mistaken, this movie is not Changeling. It's not an inspirational tale about having the strength to never lose faith and mustering up the courage to live on after losing your child. Prisoners is dark, depressing, and lacks any real sense of redemption. The characters don't really grow, if anything all the characters do is wither up and slowly descend into a state of depression. Who would wan't to watch that? Who would want to slowly watch a seemingly happy family be torn apart and emotionally tortured, followed by a man physically torturing a mentally-challenged man. Apparently, I want to watch that. Prisoners is the best movie I've seen this year, which is really confusing. I don't really know how to describe this movie or recommend it. I can't really use the word "entertaining" because there was nothing entertaining about it. Which you think would be a bad thing, but it's not. This movie didn't have to entertain me for me to like it, it INTRIGUED me. That's an verb I haven't been able to use for a movie in a while. It grabbed me by my heart and kept squeezing and squeezing. The ensemble delivered some of the most realistic, gut-wrenching performances I've ever seen. Hugh Jackman seems to consistently become a better actor every time I see him. Jake Gyllenhaal does a great job portraying the determined cop. The rest of the cast does a great job as well, but I can't help but feel like they were all underutilized. Both the director and the writer are relatively new in my eyes, but they still both do a great job with the help of 10-time Academy Award-nominee Roger Deakins, once again proving to be one of the best cinematographers ever. Prisoners is the kind of movie that will stick with you forever, it sets out to make you feel. It wants you to feel horrible for these families, it wants you to feel morally conflicted when it comes to the torture scenes, and it wants you to feel lucky and appreciative for your loved ones. At least in my eyes, it achieved all it set out to do. Which begs the question once more, what makes a movie good? Prisoners effectively makes you feel emotions that no other movie has been able to, it may not have a lot of character development, it's story isn't as excellently crafted as most; it doesn't have a lot of the stuff that makes all the other great movies great, it's very different. However, it's still great. Final Rating- B+

The Family Review

Robert De Niro in a mob movie, who saw that coming?

What happens when a mafia family man turns on the mob? I'll tell you what happens, a great movie is what happens. From Luc Besson, the director of classics such as Leon: The Professional and The Fifth Element, comes this dark comedy starring legends like Robert De Niro, Michelle Phieffer, and Tommy Lee Jones. The film centers around Giovanni Manzoni, a notorious mobster, who turns on the mob and joins witness protection. The film starts off with Gio and his family moving to Normandy, France. In which we soon learn that old habits die hard. With Tommy Lee Jones keeping the eccentric family in line, they all try to adapt to the move and the code-switch. Being a huge fan of mafia movies and even a bigger fan of Robert De Niro, I was very excited by this movie's potential. Over the last several years, De Niro has starred in worthless pieces of garbage like Righteous Kill, Machete, New Years Eve, The Big Wedding, Little Fockers, the list could go on. Lately, there is a glimmer of hope for his career. After his Oscar nomination for the excellent Silver Linings Playbook, and his upcoming reunion with director David O'Russell in American Hustle. And this movie continues that hope. I came into this movie with very high expectations. I had a lot of faith in director Luc Besson and the plot seemed intriguing. Not overly original, but intriguing none the less. 

The ensemble in this movie is fantastic. From the classic actors like Michelle Phieffer and Tommy Lee Jones, to the breakout stars such as Jon D'Leo, the cast worked together marvelously. Even though the movie was filled with great Oscar-Winning/Nominated actors, it was still Dianna Agron who stole the show in my eyes. She really proved that she can act with the best of them, and she's defiantly not hard on the eyes. The only real complaint I have for this movie was the pacing. I get that The Family is a dark comedy, making it not an extremely orthodox piece of storytelling. But the speed and tone of the movie was flabbergasting at times. At first the movie is an incredibly slow drama, then it is a marginally slow family comedy, leading to a fast-paced, action-packed climax. While all parts were enjoyable to watch, it is still strange to observe that transition. Besides the tone, everything else in this movie worked for me. The character development was great and refreshing to watch seeing as how that is the key element missing from the biggest disappointments this year; disappointments such as Man of Steel, R.I.P.D., and Lone Ranger. Overall, The Family is an interesting, satisfying dark comedy filled with good performances, good action, and left me with a feeling a glee (no pun intended) in my heart. Robert De Niro, keep this up. Final Rating- B

Riddick Review

Riddick is back and better than...Well, better than the last 10 years.

Betrayed by his own kind and left for dead on a human less planet, Riddick has to fight off an army of violent predators, more powerful and and dangerous than anything has ever come across before. And those are just the beginning of his problems. Now, a distress beacon brings down violent bounty hunters with one intention, to bring back Riddick's head in a box. Unbeknownst to them, this planet is not all desolate as it seems as they now have to put aside their differences and team up with Riddick if they want to get past swarms of monsters, and get off the planet alive. After the overly-bloated and monotonous Chronicles of Riddick 9 years ago, the expectations for the new installment were fairly low in my mind. Since Chronicles, Vin Diesel has been in not one, not two, but three new successful Fast and Furious movies, making his action-hero image quite expansive.
Finally, he is back and ready to fight for his freedom. The plot is fairly simple and resembles the plot of Pitch Black. The biggest downside to this movie is the pacing. The first 30 minutes of Riddick are actually a little boring. He is wounded and spends the first half hour getting back into better condition. While trying to improve his mental and physical strength, he comes across these Alien-looking predators and befriends a mutated dog. The movie really starts to pick up once the bounty hunters come down to the planet. Finally, Riddick reverts to his old persona of the hunter instead of the hunted. The violence and action in this movie are what you can come to expect from sci-fi action thriller nowadays. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's defiantly not ground-breaking. Once Riddick and the bounty hunters ban together to fight the army of monsters, we enter the best parts of the movie. It's peculiar that Chronicles cast over 100 million dollars to make, yet Riddick cost only a little bit more than 30 million to make. Proving that more money doesn't always mean better quality. Overall, it is a lot better than Chronicles and even though it is not a game changing thriller, it is likely to satisfy all Riddick fans and even satisfy most sci-fi action fans. Final Rating- B-

Kick Ass 2 Movie Review

Kick-Ass 2 has a different Director. Kick-Ass 2 has a VERY different director and believe me, it shows. IT SHOWS!

Does anyone remember that 2010 superhero flick directed by the guy who gave us the wonderfully magical Stardust? You know the one, the one that kept pushing the envelope but in a really great way? The one that was filled with nerdy wit and a glowing appreciation for the superhero genre? Yeah that one, well they made a sequel and it sucks.

 From the visionary director that brought us delightful treats such as Never Back Down (sarcasm), and that great horror film that redefined the horror genre Cry Wolf (angry sarcasm), comes this sequel to the beloved superhero movie Kick-Ass (not sarcasm). I'm done with sarcasm now this movie is pretty terrible. I was very skeptical of this movie from the start. Not just because they changed the director from Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class, Stardust) to Jeff Wadlow, but because this seemed like a completely unnecessary sequel. I was very pleased with how the original ended and felt it could have benefited from remaining a stand-alone movie. But everything nowadays gets a sequel, so I went along with it. I would like to start off with talking about all of the things I liked about this movie, but I'm just drawing a blank. If I dig deep down, I think I can muster up some appreciation for Jim Carrey's role in the movie. Colonel Stars and Strips was a relatively interesting character. He was definitely not utilized as much as he should have been, but the small amount of screen time he had was fun. Okay, that is the only positive. Now with the negatives. I feel like this movie had some real identity issues. Throughout the movie, it felt like the writers were going for a sort of Scream 2 vibe. By that I mean some characters made comments referring to how this movie is a sequel, and then those comments just sort of stop. They don't go all the way that, either make this movie a satire on sequels the way the first was a satire on Superhero movies or don't, just make up your mind.

The biggest crowd pleaser in the original was obviously foul-mouthed little killer Hit-Girl. I will give props to this movie for showing a human side of her and going deeper into her character. But just because they went deeper into her character, however, doesn't necessarily mean her character was developed at all. Showing the audience a more sensitive side of a character is a great way to incorporate some character development, which is not what they do for some reason. Let me give some background. For the first time in her life, Hit-Girl has to go to High School, marking her first encounter with school bullies and all of the fun things that go along with being a teenager. Some of the kids are mean to her and for the first time she is up against an enemy she can't just slice and dice, even though she really wants to. This could have been a great opportunity for a tremendous character arc. She could have just taken the high rode and learned that there are some battles that you have to walk away from to become a better person. They don't do that, leading to one of the most immature and unfunny sequences I've seen in the series. Overall, the movie doesn't have the same comic wit that made the first a cult favorite, the writing was uninspired, great opportunities were missed and the director change was a huge mistake. Overall Rating- C-

The World's End Movie Review

From the guys who brought us comedy gems like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, comes this epic ending to the Cornetto trilogy that is amazingly...just kinda good.

The World's End centers around Gary King, played by Simon Pegg. 20 years ago, he and his four best friends attempted a pub crawl. The 5 friends weren't able to complete the challenge, and they all went on living their lives. Except for Gary. Now he must reunite all his friends and go back to the town to finish the crawl or die trying. Unbeknownst to Gary and his old childhood friends, however, the town has changed since they've been there last, which is where the story begins. Sounds like a fun plot, right? Yeah. Personally, I love Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. They are two of the funniest movies I've seen from past 20 years or so. I thoroughly enjoyed Spaced which was brought to us by the same people. That being said, I was extremely disappointed with The World's End. The main killer in this film were not the robots (aliens?), for me what killed this movie the most were my outrageously high expectations. I'm one of those rare people who actually enjoyed Shaun of the Dead and Hot fuzz equally. They were both witty and entertaining, and a lot fun. So, naturally, I was under the assumption that I would love this one as well. I didn't. Before I go off on the negatives, I want to start talking about what I liked about this movie which is a longer list. First off, the cast in this movie is phenomenal.

 As a fan of the predecessors, it was nice to see all of these familiar faces popping up here and there. Including some new faces such as Eddie Marsan and James Bond himself, Pierce Brosnon. Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, and Martin Freeman return after appearing in Shaun and Fuzz, but for me, it was Simon Pegg who really stole the show. In the first two installments, Simon played relatively kind characters. The character of David King is the total opposite of that. He is crude, and rude, and completely immature. Which not surprisingly makes him an incredibly entertaining character to watch. The first half of this movie I really liked. The first 40 minutes felt a lot like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead with all of the fast cuts, not so subtle foreshadowing, and quick-witted humor. Once they got to the town, the movie felt like it was dragging a bit and didn't really feel like it's predecessors. It didn't have that daunting, somber, and even macabre tone that the first two films had in spades. It just felt like your run-of-the-mill sci-fi comedy, while still being much better than Neighborhood Watch. Once they got around to the action the fun returned, didn't feel like Shaun fun, but fun none the less. Which then led to the last 30 minutes of the movie which, I swear, felt like some of the messiest writing I've seen, in a couple weeks- but that's only because there have been some real sloppy movies this year. The movie started off pretty strong but it got to a place that was, and it pains me to say this, kinda boring. At that point, I had my head in my palms and a lump in my throat. Leading to an ending that made me utterly and completely disappointed. In the end, it was a big let down for a fan of the first two installments. It defiantly had it's moments and was still better than a lot of the other piles of garbage that came into theaters this year, but I still left the theater with the nagging thought bouncing around in my head "It Could Have Been Better, It Could Have Been Better." It could have been so much better. Final Rating- B

2013 Emmy Predictions

    2013 Emmy Predictions

The Emmy's are coming soon, and the competition this year is tough. From American Horror Story with a total of 17 nominations, to the fan-favorite medieval drama Game of Thrones with 16 nominations, to the soon-ending Breaking Bad holding a total of 13 nominations. Not just past winners are the favored party, Netflix's first high-profile drama House of Cards racked in 9 Emmy nominations, unprecedented for a show not to air on broadcast or cable television. Cards isn't the only Netflix show to score big. Netflix's revised and incredibly-loved series Arrested Development received 3 Emmy's, including Best Actor Jason Bateman. All of the nominees this year are superb, but, obviously, there can only be one winner in each category. Will Breaking Bad finally win best drama? Will Modern Family reclaim it's position as Best Comedy? Here are my predictions for this year's Emmy's awards.

DRAMA

Best Drama Series: Breaking Bad

With Breaking Bad ending this year, it seems fitting to send it off with the Emmy the show has deserved for the past 5 years. Seeing as how Homeland was a big, messy disappointment this season, it seems likely it won't be the victor. The acting, writing, and directing this season and every other season have been phenomenal, the Emmy should go to the show that is consistently mesmerizing. My pick is Breaking Bad this year.

Best Actor: Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad)

"You asked me if I'm in the meth business or the money business. I'm in neither. I'm in the Empire business."-Walter White. Words spoken by the greatest drama television character ever. For the past 5 years now, Cranston has delivered performances unmatched by anyone, television and film. Even though Damian Lewis did win last year (which I disagree with), the very poor, unrealistic second season will likely cause Homeland to leave empty handed. Like I said, this season was superb and with the series ending soon, it would be preferable to end with Cranston in his proper place, at the podium accepting his fourth Emmy as the Scarface of television. However, if Cranston does not bring home the prize, I would prefer Kevin Spacey's amazing performance in House of Cards to get the golden statue.

Best Actress: Claire Danes (Homeland) 

As I've said before a couple times, I was thoroughly disappointed with the second season of Homeland. That being said, these are predictions, not hopes. If I had my way, I would have given the Emmy to Robin Wright for her captivating, manipulative performance in Netflix's House of Cards. But, it's not my choice. Claire Dane's performance was probably the only good thing about Homeland this season. It may not have been as electrifying (pun intended, pun always intended) as it was in the first season, but it was still exemplar. Claire is my prediction, and one I would be surprised but defiantly not disappointed if proven incorrect.

Best Supporting Actor: Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad)

A repeated victory from Aaron Paul seems very likely. These past three years Aaron has added such incredible layers to the character of Jesse Pinkman, so much so that he has become a fan favorite. Going from an immature, pot dealer with an over-fondness of the word meaning "female dog" to practically becoming the morale compass of the show is not an simple task, but Paul and the writers have done it with such realism and grace. The series is ending soon, the season was phenomenal, and the character of Jesse Pinkman is almost as interesting as the character of Walter White. I would only be okay if Aaron Paul lost to co-star Jonathan Banks, who too had a great year.

Best Supporting Actress: Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad)

Not all of the Breaking Bad actors deserve to win just because it is their last year, all of the Breaking Bad Actors deserve to win because this was their best year. This statement definitely does not exclude Anna Gunn. Skylar White used to be one of the most annoying character on Breaking Bad or any other show. In the fifth season, she is still very annoying, but Anna Gunn and the writers add plenty of new layers to the character that don't just make her more bearable, but made her more sympathetic. Her performance this year was phenomenal. For the first time in Breaking Bad history, Skylar proved herself to be almost as smart and manipulative as her drug-dealing husband. She began putting her foot down and wanting to protect her children, which made her not just a character who stood in the way, but one who was pushing back, which is immensely more entertaining.

Comedy

Best Comedy Series: Modern Family

Let's be honest here, chances are very good that Modern Family will bring home the award again for the fourth time. I can not explain in words how happy I will be if Louie finally won. Well, actually I can put it in words: Very, very happy. This was a great season of Louie and C.K. gave one of the best performances I've ever seen. Still, the academy are real suckers when it comes to this family comedy. This season was an average year in Modern Family terms, which still means pretty good. This ensemble is still very funny and they work well together. Even though I would avidly prefer Louie to win, chances are that Modern Family will win again. As long as The Big Band Theory doesn't win, I think I'll be fine.

Best Actor: Louie C.K. (Louie)

Louie probably won't win best Comedy, despite it now being the best comedy on television, but my money is on Louie C.K. bringing home the Emmy. This was an excellent season for Louie C.K. Not only was his writing and directing great, but his acting was superb. Louie has always brought an honest, brutal display of life after the age 40. Louie is now not only one of, if not the, best stand-up comedians I've ever seen, but he is also one of the best comedy television actors I've ever seen. He does so much for this fantastic, hilarious show. I would completely lose my faith in the academy if they snub him and give the award to Alec Baldwin or worse, Jim Parsons.

  Best Actress: Julie Louis-Dreyfus (Veep)

Let's face it, Julie is a tremendous comedic actress. Veep may not be my favorite comedy on television, but her performance really makes the show. I actually wouldn't mind Tina Fey winning the Emmy this year. 30 Rock is definitely not my favorite comedy on television, nor has it ever been. But Tina does so much for the show the whole 8 years it's been on, just like Breaking Bad, it might be nice for it to leave on a high note for Tina. Who I also would like Amy Poehler to win. She has never brought home the Emmy and she is great in Parks and Rec. I don't really care for any of the other actresses nominated. As much as I enjoy the three actresses I mentioned, I still stick with my first choice, Julie. Even though I like Parks and Rec more than Veep, something about Julie's performance really intrigues and entertains me. I'm putting my money on Dreyfus.

  

Best Supporting Actor: Ty Burrell (Modern Family)

Definitely in my top five comedy TV actors of the year. All of the actors on Modern Family are extremely gifted and Ty is no exception. He really pulls off the dad trying to too hard to be cool, almost like a dad version of Michael Scott. All of the actors from Modern Family who are nominated have a good chance of winning, and so does extremely talented Bill Hader, especially seeing as how this was his last year on SNL. Even though Burrell is competing against 4 very talented comedy actors, I still think he has the best shot. A lot of people, including the academy, really like Phil Dunphy. Ty has already won one Emmy for his role and it seems very likely this year he will win his second.          

 

Best Supporting Actress: Julie Bowen (Modern Family)

Julie is going to win, no doubt about it. She has already won before for her role, it seems as if the academy will never give Sofia Vergara a break, Julie is our best bet, and rightfully so. She does an incredible job playing the over-protective, controlling mother without overdoing it, she does a really, really good job. Besides Sofia, Julie's Modern Family co-star, I don't really care for any of the other nominees. I can't stand The Big Bang Theory, so I don't want Mayim Bialik winning, I don't like Nurse Jackie so I don't care for whatever her name is to win. It just comes down to the Modern Family girls, so my money is on Julie.                                         

5 Actresses Who Could Play Wonder Woman

 

My Top 5 Choices for the Role of Wonder Woman

                   

#1.) Gemma Arterton (27)

Gemma Arterton was, without a doubt, born for the role of Wonder Woman (and Lara Croft). Her career so far has been...very interesting. From small independent let-downs like Tamara Drewe, to big-budget disappointments like Clash of the Titans and Quantum of Solace. However, just because her movie choices haven't been great, doesn't mean she is a bad actress. She recently starred along side Saoirse Ronan in the vampire flick Byzantium, in which Arterton effectively proved that she truly is an amazing actress with an incredible range. If given the right script, director, and opportunity, Arterton can really prove to the world how good she really is. The only downside I could possible think of with Gemma is the lack of blue eyes, but if they can cast Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury, a WHITE comic book character, then I think we can let a change in eye color slide. Gemma is my number one choice for Wonder Woman. 

#2.) Hayley Atwell (31)

Hayley has earned her place in comic book lore after portraying the strong and independent Peggy Carter in Captain America: First Avenger. Seeing as how modern day Marvel movies are taking place in, well, modern day times, I doubt we will be seeing much of Peggy or Hayley in Captain America; except if she is in an old woman costume, of course. Which means she will probably not have her hands full of other obligations. Even though I've only seen a few things she's in, I can already tell she is a decent actor. However, I've yet to see her in a movie in which she is an American. I'd like to think she could pull it off as well as Gemma, but there's no way to tell. If she can manage pulling off the same sense of control, strength, and independence as she did in Captain America, then I think the world will be in for a quite a ride as the Amazing Amazon reclaims her relevance in today's superhero craze.

#3.) Odette Yustman (28)

Unfortunately, Gemma Arterton and Hayley Atwell are not yet household names. However, due to their roles in Captain American (Hayley) and Prince of Persia (Gemma), they both hold a small cult following. Odette Yustman does not have that luxury. She proved to be a good actress in her leading role in Cloverfield and delivered a surprisingly decent performance in The Unborn along with her great recurring performance on House M.D. It feels like, just like Gemma, if she were given the right opportunity she could achieve greatness. She may not have the muscle tone of other potential candidates like Gina Carano, but I believe she has the talent necessary to get the job done. Shae may not have the best track record when it comes to her movie choices, but look on the bright side, at least she's better than Megan Fox.

#4.) Rhona Mitra (37)

While she may not be "too" old, she does rest on the boarder. At 37, she may be the best choice for Wonder Woman if the intent is to make the Amazon more mature and serious. After watching Rise of the Lycans and her character in the deliciously shady Nip/Tuck,  it's fair to say Rhona can convey a tremendous amount of emotion. She has the right look for the character, she has the necessary build and facial features. If she's not too busy hopefully starring in Dean Koontz's Frankentein TV series, then I believe she would make a great addition to the DC universe. However, if there is a Wonder Woman movie being made, she would be right on the edge of 40. With Henry Cavill being only 30, and with DC looking for a more youthful Batman, a 40 year old woman may not be what they are looking for, despite the talent she can bring to the character. However, if I had a time machine, I would make 30-year old Rhona Wonder Woman in a heartbeat.

#5.) Zoey Duetch (19)

This is the choice that excites me the most. Being a big fan of the unfairly cancelled Ringer, Zoey was an actress that really caught my attention. Yes, right now, she is a teenager, and the youngest candidate on my list and probably any other list. However, as I said with Rhona, the movie won't happen for the next several years. Lynda Carter was 25 years old, in 4 years, all other candidates on my list would be over the age of 30. However, in Zoey's case, she would be 23, the closest to Lynda's age, and I think it is safe to say that Zoey looks a few years over 20 already. With the upcoming movie Vampire Academy hitting theaters in 2014, the first of a potential franchise, Zoey is getting her name out there. If Vampire Academy blows up as large as Twilight flabbergastingly did, then she will soon become a household name, making her a great candidate for a more relatable, youthful Wonder Woman. Fingers crossed for her over Kristen Stewart. Yeesh.

5 Actors Who Can Play The Next Batman

  For the past 25 years now, 4 different actors have portrayed the brooding billionaire Bruce Wayne in 7 different Movies. Some of them, such as Michael Keaton and especially American Psycho star Christian Bale, have done a great job bringing the masked crusader to the big screen. However, the other actors -George Clooney and Val Kilmer- were unable to do such an exemplar job with the task. After wrapping up The Dark Knight Rises last year, Christian Bale put up his cape and utility belt after three motion pictures, and according to him, it would stay that way. However, at Comic-Con this year, Zack Snyder, the director of Man of Steel and the upcoming sequel, dropped a bombshell about the plot of the next Superman movie. He implied with the help of actor Harry Lennix and an amazing visual, that the next Man of Steel will revolve around Superman fighting BATMAN! Of course, the inner nerd in me squealed with delight. Even though the first Man of Steel didn't met my expectations, this news excited me. Then quickly horrified me. First of all, it feels like DC is rushing into this idea. The biggest complaint about Man of Steel was that it was too dark. Now that they got rid of Zod and Clark finally joined the Daily Planet, Superman can begin to retreat into more familiar and friendly territory like in Donner's adaptation. By adding the Dark Knight, the movie promises to continue being dark and depressing. Secondly, The Dark Knight Rises ended implying that Batman (Christian Bale) was retiring and passing the torch to Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). This means that Bale would not be reprising his role as Batman, and Levitt may take his place. However, the Man of Steel movie appeared to not be in the same cinematic universe as the Dark Knight Trilogy, meaning they can cast anyone they want and almost start from scratch. Since this announcement, names have been thrown around about who should play the new bamtan in Man of Steel 2. Keeping in mind that the actor would not only have to be in the Superman sequel, but will also likely be in the Justice League movie(s?), I compiled a 5-Actor list of who should put on the rubber suit and fight crime.

- Michael Fassbender (35): 

Yes, I know, he is magneto. But if Ryan Reynolds can be both Deadpool and Green Lantern, and a horrible one on both accounts, I think we can let this one slide. Michael Fassbender can perfectly embody the character of Bruce Wayne. He has proved time and time again to be a great actor. In X-Men: First Class, Fassbender brilliantly portrayed a powerful man whose childhood tragedy shaped who he is today and uses that tragedy as motivation instead of letting it hold him back. Sound familiar? The character of Bruce Wayne is a deep and complex character, and Michael's acting skills could more than pull it off. This is a doubtful outcome however, seeing as how he will likely be extremely busy with all the upcoming X-Men movies being released. Hopefully he can fit it in his schedule to play the good guy.

- Idris Elba (40): 

Yes, Idris Elba is a black man. It may be a little odd to have our new Batman be played by the actor who played Nelson Mandela the year before. Bruce Wayne has always been portrayed by a Caucasian, but now is a good time as any to make a change. Idris Elba is a fantastic actor. Having enjoyed watching and completing BBC's Luther and loving his incredible apocalypse-cancelling in the sci-fi action-fest Pacific Rim, Elba quickly went from being "that one guy from The Losers", to becoming one of my favorite working actors today. The thing that really made me give this man respect is the fact that he is English. I have seen a lot of movies, one could say too many movies, and whenever I see or hear an English actor faking an American accent, I can tell very quickly. Idris is the only actor that thoroughly convinced me that he was American, I still can't even believe it. Idris, at 40, may be a little too old to be playing Batman, but I have a feeling that if he played Justin Beiber in a Bio-flick, I would still be fooled.

- Joe Mangeniello (37):

I have never seen True Blood before hearing the news of the new Superman movie. After the announcement, I scoured through the internet to see who people wanted to play Batman. Everywhere I went, I kept seeing this unfamiliar name "Joe Manganiello". Everyone kept praising him for True Blood, so I decided if he was to be the new Batman then I would give it a shot. Joe can definitely give off a menacing, powerful vibe. He definitely packs enough muscle to make it believable he is out every night fighting against evil single-handedly. However, I'm still not entirely certain that he has the acting skills necessary to play such a deep, psychological character. Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, George Clooney, and even Val Kilmer were all excellent actors when they played Batman. He will defiantly have to step it up if he wants to play the masked vigilante. He has the right look, and he may hopefully prove to have the right acting chops to go along with it. Either that, or we will have another Vin Diesel on our hands.                              

- Jensen Ackles (35)

If DC is attempting to make Batman a younger, more relatable character, I think Jensen may be their best bet. Jensen Ackles proved he is a decent enough actor by his past 8 years on Supernatural. Compared to all of the other choices, Ackles is probably the one who will have the most free time on his hands. With Supernatural undoubtedly being over and done with by 2015, and with his movie career not being extremely demanding, he appears to be a good, available option. Although Jensen is not yet a household name, he has enough of a cult following to get butts in seats. 

Josh Brolin (45):

Josh Brolin would be my choice for Bruce Wayne only if DC wants Batman to be an older and more mature character. After watching his great performances in films such as MIB 3 and No Country for Old Men, it has become apparent that he has a very wide range as an actor. Like I has said before, he would be my first choice for an older, more mature Batman, he and Idris would be my top two choices. However, Brolin may just be too old for the role as Batman. And seeing as how the second Man of Steel is going to be Superman fighting Batman, it may be odd to watch 45 year old Brolin in an intense battle with high-flying 30 year old Henry Cavill.