Apollo 18

Rating: 3.4 out of 5 stars

Movie: Apollo 18 (2011)

Studio : Dimension Films

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 87 min

Website : apollo18movie.net

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

Two astronauts (Warren Christie and Lloyd Owen) are sent on a secret mission to the moon to determine why NASA had deemed the lunar surface unsafe and cancelled all future missions. In the real world, this was due to funding issues which shut down the program in 1972, but this revisionist look at the space program shows that there was something far more sinister afoot than a lack of coin. And the Department of Defense wanted to know what it was. The filmmakers then supposedly found 80 hours of footage, which was classified but leaked out for the world to know in what I guess is a shout out to Wikileaks.

The company releasing this film has gone through some great lengths to pretend that this is actual footage of a real life event that was hidden away from the public. Even the two stars of the film are listed with no credit in the Internet Movie Database. It contends that they are not real actors at all, but real astronauts that had to endure their terrible journey. To me, what the producers are trying to do just insults the movie going audience’s intelligence. This isn’t like Area 51 where things happened on a secret base somewhere that no outsider could get to. This is space we are talking about. And to get to space is not just a hop into your personal spacecraft and off you go. Rockets being hauled out onto the pad and the days of preparations can not be done in shadow. As someone who lived close to Cape Canaveral, any launch is big news and would have been back in 1973, when the space race was in full force. At the very least, people would have remembered it. If you are going to push the conspiracy idea, it works better if the facts are at least somewhat believable. This footage gimmick may have worked in Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, but only because people could relate to not knowing what goes on inside every house or deep in the dark woods. Finding a tape would be almost believable. But using low budget camera tricks and pawning it off as some sort of real footage is stupid.

But in all fairness, that really doesn’t have anything to do with the movie itself except that it sets the tone of the film from the very start with the opening written narration. From there, the story plays in three acts using what looks like 40 year old video tape. It’s grainy. It flickers out a lot, having been supposedly damaged over time, and has that hand held queasiness factor that is only kept in check by some still camera work such as when they are in the capsule. This can get a bit annoying after a bit, but thankfully the shorter running time doesn’t make it too much of a strain on the eyes and in some parts these low budget visual effects actually work in the movie’s favor. At the very least, they do make you feel as though this is the 1970’s you are watching, thankfully without the leisure suits.

The story is far more character driven than other entries into the hand held thriller genre. There is a great dynamic between the two men as the danger gets more and more real. And their fear comes across very well. The close quarters, what lies outside, are all phobias that can be attributed to the human condition and the movie plays on that. It also does well delving in the conspiracy theory that the movie tries to imply. My only minor fault here is that a little more information about what happened prior would have been helpful in understanding and relating to their predicament. We don’t know anything about them and why they are there.

If this was a pseudo documentary into a false conspiracy, it might have been okay, but this being billed as a horror movie. So it has to be reviewed as one. And in this case, it failed pretty badly on the scare factor. Like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark that we just reviewed, it relies on suspense to fuel the few gotcha moments in the film. But it does not do this successfully. While there are some pretty disturbing moments, the anxiety is never really that heightened that the jumps are off the chart. And once we see the enemy, the film becomes even more anti-climatic. The trailer promised that the last 10 minutes would go down in movie history. Not sure what history they were referring to. The end doesn’t seem to justify the journey making one walk out of the theater really scratching their heads. I guess the sequel will help.

For a low budget film, director Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego did his best to try to stretch every dollar and there are parts that are better than some big budget action movies, especially in the acting, but it wasn’t enough to pull the film out of mediocrity. I give this film a 3.2/5, a little better than some, but not able to scare, which was the point.

Related posts:

1. Colombiana Rating: Movie: Colombiana (2011) Studio : EuropaCorp Info : Click...
2. Insidious Rating: Movie: Insidious (2011) Studio : Alliance Films Info :...
3. Hanna Rating: Movie: Hanna (2011) Studio : Focus Features/Sony Info :...

Colombiana

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Movie: Colombiana (2011)

Studio : EuropaCorp

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 107 min

Website : www.colombiana-movie.com

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

When a mob boss in Bogota, Columbia feels that her family has betrayed him, he orders everyone killed and believes that is what happened. But what he doesn’t know is that the young daughter Cataleya (Amandla Stenberg) survived. Taken in by her uncle, she learns the ways of being a professional killer and by the time she’s an adult (Zoe Saldana), she is very good at what she does. But there is only one target she’s interested in, and that’s the one that murdered her parents. In order to root him out, she leaves clues that catch the attention of not only him, but of the FBI as well.

The movie is not an original concept. It takes cues from Luc Besson’s previous works such as The Professional which brought Natalie Portman to the public eye as the little girl who sees her family murdered and decides to take up with an assassin for protection and training. Colombiana doesn’t end when she is still a child however, but follows Catalaya into adulthood as a ruthless killer, much like in Besson’s other film Nikita. But even though these two film plots combined into one, the movie is no where near the level in terms of plot and complex characterizations that portrayed the brutal side of the psyche scorned in the other ones, even in someone so young.

But that is not what Besson obviously intended here, but to provide action over the path of enlightened portrayals. And in that respect, he did okay. The movie is filled with all sorts of action scenes, one right after the other, leading audiences on an exhausting, but somewhat exhilarating pace. And that is what most b-rated action movies do, but the lack of any sort of plot and generic characters and villains that were laughable got in the way of even the scenes that were decent.

The one lone star in the movie was Zoe Saldana herself. She portrayed Cataleya with a focus that was unparalleled. Every step she took, every action, even though she had limited dialog, was in character and made the assassin come alive. There was no time that we didn’t believe who she was and that takes a good deal of talent. I can’t think of anyone who could have handled it better. These type of films don’t usually get recognized at the awards, but she really does deserve one for the ruthless persona she brought to Cataleya.

It’s just a shame that she received no support from those around her or the script itself. The acting was generic at best, in some parts even horrible, and the plot that did exist was just there to move the action along.

Colombiana is a recent example of what used to be called a b-rated film. It has a lot of action and not much else. And so we give it a 3.0/5 stars and the only reason we are really going that high is because of Saldana’s performance.

Related posts:

1. Hanna Rating: Movie: Hanna (2011) Studio : Focus Features/Sony Info :...
2. Apollo 18 Rating: Movie: Apollo 18 (2011) Studio : Dimension Films Info...
3. Fast Five Rating: Movie: Fast Five (2011) Studio : Universal Info :...

Conan the Barbarian

Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Movie: Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Studio : Lionsgate

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 113 min

Website : conanthebarbarianin3d.com

Rating : R

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

In this origin story of the Cimmerian warrior, Conan the Barbarian is shown from his bloody birth on the battlefield, literally cut out of his mother’s stomach by his father (Ron Perlman) to his training as a young warrior (Leo Howard) to his final transformation into the man (Jason Momoa) who would become a legend. It seems that an evil sorcerer Kahlar Zym (Stephen Lang) wants an ancient mask that holds horrific powers, but pieces of it were scattered to different Cimmerian villages after the war to keep the power from ever being used again. His searching brings him to Conan’s village, where the boy’s father is killed right before his eyes and Conan vows to get his revenge. But Zym discovers that the mask’s power has one other requirement, the blood of a descendant of the tribe for which it was forged and so he sends his witchy daughter (Rose McGowan) to find her. But when Conan rescues her from the evil sorceress, he finds himself in a web of not only barbaric events but magical ones as well.

I liked the original Conan movies, even the second one which was fun for the comedy and Arnie’s ability to play both sides. But from the trailer, I knew what I was getting into here. The director Marcus Nispel, after all, is known for his remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th, which no one would argue wasn’t gory and violent. And so I went in with an open mind that this was not going to be the Conan I knew from the past, an important distinction I thought to enjoying the film. I say this because I don’t want people thinking that I was just being overly judgmental because of the original.

But there was really little to enjoy here and I blame that mostly on the writing more than anything else. The story was absolutely as messy as the bloody battlefield, as if the broken up mask being put together was the symbol of the script itself. There were a lot of loose ideas and senseless plot points that were thrown together from whatever seemed to pop in their heads at the moment. I could see the development meeting where it was like “Let’s throw this in…” “Why?” “Cause its cool and something for Conan to chop up with his sword.” “Great.” Except for the first few minutes, there was no attention to the characters’ emotional states at all. Instead they came off as just mindless robots being put through their paces towards a goal. Conan wound up being just a killing machine like Jason, rather than the smart, clever warrior that the Howard stories portrayed him as.

Nispel was the wrong man for the job as director. His previous experience did not at all lend itself well to this sort of movie. The large battle sequences and action scenes seemed to be out of his league, which he tried to cover with fast paced camera moves. These did not make the movie more exciting, only distracting. Since the movie is about a man whose life is full of such scenarios, you think this would have been something producers considered when finding a director. Not only that, but he also found it difficult, even with the script aside, to draw emotion out of his actors, but then documentaries of music concerts and straight up slasher films are not exactly emotional experiences.

Jason Momoa seemed like the perfect fit as Conan. As Ronan in Stargate Atlantis, he was already basically the epitome of the role. He had that caring soul that was extremely loyal to his friends, but took no crap and would rather spend his day killing enemies if given the chance. There wasn’t a fight he didn’t like. And so while I never saw him on Game of Thrones, I could very much see him in the role. And he did as good a job as could be expected, but the script did him in worse than any sword could.

Given nothing to work with in both script and direction, the rest of the cast just ran through their paces, using little of their combined acting talent. And there was quite a bit that could have been there, especially with names like Ron Perlman, Rachel Nichols and Rose McGowan. The only one who really got to shine was Leo Howard, the young Conan, because he was in a portion of the movie that allowed some emotion between a father and a son rather than mindless revenge and villainy.

And finally, don’t bother paying the extra money to see this in the 3D theaters. This is one film that you can see in 2D and not feel like you missed something. The implementation doesn’t seem to be anything more than an after thought and so there is only a few moments of any value, mixed in with a lot that isn’t.

All in all, we didn’t like this film, although Momoa did what he could. And so we give it a 2/5 with no further comment.

Related posts:

1. Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop Rating: Movie: Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop (2011) Studio : Pariah...

Spy Kids 4

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Movie: Spy Kids 4 (2011)

Studio : Dimension Films

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 89 min

Website : spykidsmovie.net

Rating : PG

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

The Spy Kids are back in a new adventure, only it’s the next generation courtesy of Marissa Wilson (Jessica Alba), who is sister to Antonio Banderas’ character in the original. She’s a top spy who while pregnant even took down the arch villain Tik Tok. But having a baby with husband Wilbur (Joel McHale) gives her reason to quit the spy biz and settle down. But a year later, Tik Tok, now with an accomplice Timekeeper (Jeremy Piven), decides to take ‘time’ away from the world and Marissa must return to stop him. This time, though, she gets her whole family involved including her two step kids Rebecca (Rowan Blanchard) and Cecil (Mason Cook), her baby daughter, their guard dog Argonaut (voiced by Ricky Gervais) and a blast from the past, the original Spy Kids (Daryl Sabara and Alexa Vega) to save the world once again.

As an adult, movies meant for kids are often difficult to see from a kids’ perspective. I took my niece with me to see the film and from her and other kids’ reactions to the numerous sight gags and poop/fart/puke jokes, it was obvious the target audience was a very young age. Although writer and director Robert Rodriguez did try his hardest to include those over 6, most of those moments were either few and far between, or fell flat against the backdrop. The previous endeavors, especially the first two, were much better at entertaining those parents who would be forced to sit there with their kids, but to me, it was a long 83 minutes.

While it was good to see Jessica Alba using her martial arts training once again that we haven’t seen since Dark Angel, she really is wasted in this film as an actress. It was obvious, although a good sport about the predicaments she found herself in, that she was doing this perhaps only to show daughter Honor what her mommy did for a living later on. Although I don’t know what kind of mother would bring her one year old child on a potentially dangerous mission. I kept thinking that if this was real life, she’d probably have CPS take her children away for endangerment. But it’s just a movie, so all is good I guess.

All the adults in this movie were as they are in most aimed at kid’s movies, flat and used as a bumper for the kids to defy. I have to admit though that Jeremy Piven was actually pretty good as the over the top villain Timekeeper, his scenes being some of the best.

Blanchard and Cook did quite well for their age and were very believable without being overly cute or obnoxious, which kids in these films often are. They handled the scenes well and dare I say almost better than their older veterans. Having Vega and Sabara return was inspired to not only serve as a continuity conduit but also they had some of the same vibe as their screen parents did in the original movies, which helped with the nostalgia and kept the film from slipping all the way into the abyss.

An appearance by Danny Trejo was also a welcome sight as the gadget creating Machete.

The 3D was very well done in this one, much better than previous outings. Of course, in this one, the 3D is the real deal, and shot in native 3D format, which makes some of the scenes incredible to watch. It’s definitely worth seeing this one in the 3D theater for nothing else but the jawdropping effects. Ships and even some of the characters actually fly out of the screen at you, which I have to say was very impressive.

Less impressive was the Aroma-Scope, which is basically a card with numbered areas. When the appropriate number comes on the screen, you scratch the surface and sniff, like back when we were kids. It’s not very potent and you could smell some of the odors to some extent. This really only works for the kids as parents are too jaded to really get the effect. Actually I found the whole thing rather bothersome while trying to watch the action that I gave up after the first couple.

In the end, the kids liked it and the movie left the parents and uncles basically groaning and so we give this movie a 2.5/5. The 3D was great, the movie not so much, especially at the price of 3D films, but it’s an okay family time film if you have some cash and afternoon to blow with the young-ins.

Related posts:

1. Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer Rating: Movie: Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer (2011)...
2. The Smurfs Rating: Movie: Smurfs (2011) Studio : Sony Pictures Info :...
3. Rio Rating: Movie: Rio (2011) Studio : Blue Sky Studios Info...

30 Minutes or Less

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Movie: 30 Minutes or Less (2011)

Studio : Columbia Pictures

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 83 min

Website : 30minutesorless.com

Rating : R

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

Travis (Nick Swardson) and Dwayne (Danny McBride) have an idea. They want to kill Dwayne’s father, but murder is serious business and expensive too. So where can they get that kind of cash to handle it properly. From a bank of course, but they don’t want to do the job themselves. Instead, they hijack a down on his luck pizza delivery guy (Jesse Eisenberg) and to force him to do the crime, slap a bomb on him and give him ten hours before it explodes. If he returns the money, he’s good. If not, well.

It’s obvious that there is no longer any adults in comedy writing anymore, because what seems to fuel what passes as comedy in this day and age is jokes that were probably snickered at in a middle school bathroom. Sure, there are bound to be a few laughs. If you spend 83 minutes telling one joke after the other, one is bound to stick to the ribs. But a constant barrage of sex jokes or bodily function humor, like in McBride’s other “comedy” Your Highness, gets very old and a bit offensive, very quickly. I, for one, was glad that the movie wasn’t two hours long because there is only so much one can take. Although, a longer running time may have allowed the director to focus more on plot and time the jokes out to be more effective, which would have provided better balance.

Pacing is the biggest problem in this film, but it also suffers from another issue. Because the jokes were obviously top priority, it seems like the characterizations were not very important. Several of the cast seemed to completely change personalities during the course of the film. I’m not talking about the usual gradual attitude change as the person develops throughout the story, I’m talking about literally changing personalities as if the actor was suddenly playing a different character with the same name. This basically showed that the cast was more interested in a paycheck then keeping to their parts. Given the material, it’s hard to blame them I guess. Clearly this movie will probably be left off their resumes. I will say, however, that Aziz Anzari, who is making his movie debut, wasn’t bad and actually of all the cast, was probably the best in holding his character to one line, which stood out here.

Of all the juvenile comedies, this one is really at the top of list, which isn’t a good thing. It’s vulgar, flat and the laughs just fall by the wayside one by one because of the horrific pacing. We give this movie a 2.5/5. It has some funny moments because of the sheer number of attempts, but all in all, is just a contender for this year’s Razzies.

Related posts:

1. Your Highness Rating: Movie: Your Highness (2011) Studio : Universal Info :...
2. Rio Rating: Movie: Rio (2011) Studio : Blue Sky Studios Info...
3. The Change-Up Rating: Movie: The Change-Up (2011) Studio : Universal Info :...

Final Destination 5

Rating: 4.6 out of 5 stars

Movie: Final Destination 5 (2011)

Studio : New Line Cinema

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 105 min

Website : finaldestinationmovie.com

Rating : R

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

Death is back with a new twist as a bunch of strangers riding a bus escape the tragedy after one of their fellow passengers warns them to get off before the bridge the bus is on collapses. And as in the previous films, they are then targeted by the grim reaper one by one. But this time, there is a new rule. If they kill someone else, that person will take their place and they will no longer be on the list. But will they be able to take someone’s life to save their own?

I had my doubts about this film. After all, we’ve seen it all before over and over and this is the fifth time out. And given that the third and fourth were not very exciting, the hope for this one was that it at least didn’t suck too badly. But this one actually exceeded expectations to be one of the best in the series. It’s resurgence of the main element, which is the characters themselves, are what raises this to new heights.

One of the things missing in the last two was that I didn’t really care about who lived or who died. It was all the same to me. I didn’t get to know them and as a result, they wound up just becoming part of a mindless kill fest, despite how unique the scenarios might have been. That is not the case here. The characters are designed to be just like the audience, regular people that are now faced with an impossible decision, leaving me wondering what I would do in that situation. The excellent acting puts me in their shoes and when one dies, it’s almost like a part of myself died with them. That’s a pretty powerful feeling that creates a, pardon the pun, new dimension in the series.

It is also this twist that gives each death scene the possibility of turning out much differently then what you’d expect, giving it a very strong sense of suspense before each killing begins, which only serves to heighten the experience even more. You never know what is really going to happen and that will keep you glued to the story and at the edge of your seat.

Filmed in true 3D from the ground up, the effects are very scary and very real looking. Much better than they were in the previous edition. In fact, some effects were so real, I actually found myself ducking or moving as if the items were really coming out at me. And I’m pretty jaded by now on the whole 3D thing, but this one really portrays the process in its best, if not freakiest, light. And despite the darkness of the subject matter, things were very easy to see.

Nicholas D’Agosto and Emma Bell lead a relatively obscure cast, but that works in the movie’s favor because it gives each one more chance to be seen as a regular person and not a celebrity. If they had really pushed the top names, it would not have had half of the impact it does. All do a superb job portraying their individual characters as we said above, so it was excellent casting in our opinion.

Final Destination 5 is an awesome film and if you only see one horror movie this year, this is the one you should check out. But a word of warning. It is not for the squeamish. Along with improvements in 3D and characterization, it is also much sicker with the gory than the previous ones. One scene in particular, which I won’t get into as to spoil it, will most likely even shake the most unshakable. I give this movie a 4.6/5. It’s a bit more blood and guts than I really like in my horror movies, but the suspense and well thought out death scenarios, along with the added twist definitely give me reason to forgive that.

Related posts:

1. Fright Night Rating: Movie: Fright Night (2011) Studio : Walt Disney/DreamWorks Info...
2. Apollo 18 Rating: Movie: Apollo 18 (2011) Studio : Dimension Films Info...
3. Colombiana Rating: Movie: Colombiana (2011) Studio : EuropaCorp Info : Click...

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars

Movie: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Studio : 20th Century Fox

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 105 min

Website : apeswillrise.com

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the prequel to Planet of the Apes, this film endeavors to reveal how man gave up it’s supremacy in the future to the intelligent apes that it created. In modern day San Francisco, Will Rodman (James Franco) is doing experiments on genetic engineering for the good of Alzheimer’s patients, which his father (John Lithgow) suffers from. But the serum he thinks is the answer has profound effects on the ape they test it on, making him as smart, if not smarter than humans, and able to speak. Enthused, he believes the same will happen in humans, but the genetic differences cause it to have a terrible effect on people, making them sick and die. Determined not to give up, he continues his work for years. But at one point, has to give up the creature who has become his confidante. The ape is taken to a primate reserve, where he uses his new found intelligence to train an army of his fellow apes, with the purpose of getting revenge for how animals and apes have been treated.

It’s only fair in this review to start with Caesar, the ape. When I heard he was voiced by Andy Serkis and was CGI, my heart sunk. How will they make a movie that hinges on this character with these two things going against them? Perhaps I’m being unfair to Serkis, but Gollum is one of my least favorite characters of all time and computer graphics are usually used for Smurfs and chipmunks than for heavy dramatic creatures. But all of my fears were belayed as I sat there watching this amazing creation by Weta Digital. They were able to portray every feeling in the most realistic manner possible. You couldn’t help but believe that this ape was completely real and how he interacted with his captor for lack of a better term was simply amazing. In fact, it made the live action actors in the old movies that wore masks seem downright stuffy. And Serkis was incredibly, using his voice to really put forth the necessary tones to make you really feel for him. I no longer doubt his ability.

James Franco was another reservation I had about this film. His recent movie choices haven’t been spectacular and after the disaster that was Your Highness, I couldn’t see him playing the other side of the duo, but he turns in a performance here which I think is Academy Award quality. The way he’s able to relate to Caesar and portray the emotional rollercoaster that the intelligent script requires works very well. I’d say that he really was a good choice in the end.

We haven’t seen too much of John Lithgow lately, but he was another one that should be considered for an Oscar. His tender, yet sad portrayal of someone suffering from Alzheimer’s really showed the horrors of the disease in its purest darkness. For those who have lived with the disease first hand, the recognition of his actions in the film really hit home.

Frieda Pinto, who emerges as the love interest over her shared caring for the research, but her presense doesn’t really do anything for the story. It’s almost as if studio execs said, “But it needs a woman.” She’s good at the part, it’s just the substory just seemed an unnecessary distraction.

Tom Felton (Draco Malfroy) who is in his first blockbuster since the Potter series, doesn’t stretch at all as the son of a scumbag (Brian Cox). He plays the character just as he did in his previous job. We hope to see him mature into other roles that don’t stereotype him later on.

The film really does have something for every taste, a masterpiece that comes together in just the right way to make it a favorite even among those that hated Planet of the Apes. The heart thumping action, the sensitive drama, the light hearted moments, and the terrific casting earn this film one of our highest scores, 4.8/5. Even though this is a prequel to the rebooted Planet of the Apes which wasn’t as hot, we certainly want to see more prequels that further explore the relationships between all these characters.

Related posts:

1. X-Men: First Class Rating: Movie: X-Men: First Class (2011) Studio : 20th Century...
2. Hanna Rating: Movie: Hanna (2011) Studio : Focus Features/Sony Info :...
3. Captain America: The First Avenger Rating: Movie: Captain America (2011) Studio : Marvel Studios Info...

Smurfs

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Movie: Smurfs (2011)

Studio : Sony Pictures

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 86 min

Website : Smurf Happens

Rating : PG

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

The little blue guys (and a girl) with the white beanies are back in this “Enchanted” mixed with “Alvin and the Chipmunks”. The Smurfs are sent through a magical portal while trying to escape from Gargamel (Hank Azaria) and wind up in the real world, New York City to be exact, where they are completely lost, but know one thing. Their enemy and his cat Azrael are hot on their trail. Fortunately, they wind up in a box belonging to Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) and his wife (Jayma Mays). Now they must get home before the blue moon when they can open a portal back to their world, a portal that Gargamel realizes comes from their blue magic.

This movie is strictly for kids. For parents, these aren’t your childhood Smurfs that you remember fondly. In the cartoon so long ago, 30 years, they all lived in a nice Utopian society that helped each other out and generally loved eachother. The movie does have a couple semi-touching moments and tries to pay a bit of respect to original creator Peyo, but it fails badly. What the movie is mostly is sight gags like Smurfs falling in toilets and juvenile humor that is funny for a few minutes, but not long enough to keep adults from wanting to head for the door. Fortunately, the time is relatively short, thus cutting the pain down to a manageable 81 minutes without the credits.

The placing of the blue critters in the real world is very, very good, just like it was in Alvin and the Chipmunks. They are believable as being in this world, and Gargamel’s cat is one of the best crossbreed animations we’ve seen. The 3D also plays well with objects coming at you and with the medium in mind when they conceived and filmed it.

As to the acting, about as good as you would see in a Saturday morning cartoon, kind of generic performances that range from horrible to not that bad, but not on the par of their other acting work. Harris, aka Barney from How I Met Your Mother, is terribly wasted in this, while Jayna Mays (Heroes and Glee) just plays it the best she can, but they gave both very little to work with. These two obviously just did it for the kids they have or the kids they plan to have. Hank Azaria is the only one who almost stands out as Gargamel. Seems he actually studied the mannerisms of the cartoon character and was able to create a reasonable facsimile. Of course, this is the guy on Simpsons who is the man of many voices and is used to cartoon work.

In the end, kids will love it. My six year old niece thought it was hilarious. And why not? The smurfs are cute, blue and have all the energy of a two year old, but parents will be groaning at the end. Maybe sending the kid to the movies with a babysitter, rather than going yourself is the best idea on this one. We only give it a 2.5/5 because we’ve seen kid’s movies done much better with Disney, Pixar and others.

Related posts:

1. Rio Rating: Movie: Rio (2011) Studio : Blue Sky Studios Info...
2. Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer Rating: Movie: Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer (2011)...
3. Kung Fu Panda 2 Rating: Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011) Studio : Dreamworks...

Cowboys & Aliens

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Movie: Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Studio : Universal Pictures

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 118 min

Website : cowboysandaliens.net

Rating : PG13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

In this classic western meets War of the Worlds, Jake Lonergan (Daniel Craig) wakes near an Arizona town in the late 19th century with a futuristic gadget around his wrist and no idea who he is or how he got there. His identity doesn’t escape him for long. His appearance in town reminds him that he is a wanted criminal, one that is on the run. And he’s already being hunted by Colonel Dolarhyde who is glad to find his bounty. But before the arrest can be made, an alien ship comes to destroy the town. The device on Lonergan’s arm is a weapon that they discover can stop these creatures, which soon flock to the area. Dolarhyde isn’t happy about it, not that you can tell, but works with his captive to save the Earth from the invasion, along with a few of the town’s folk. This includes Doc the Bartender (Sam Rockwell) who winds up being the superhero sidekick and comic relief, Ella (Olivia Wilde) who is the lovely companion, a preacher (Clancy Brown) and a lad (Noah Ringer).

There truly is no good way to mix these two genres together any better than they actually did, although many would argue that the story does lack a bit of cohesion. But at least they managed to avoid most of the cheese and b-rated goofiness to make what is a decent sci-fi story that just happens to be set in the old west. This was no easy task for the writers and judging from the credits who had a lot more than most films, it really took a lot of old fashioned negotiation to work out these differences for the silver screen. The script itself is based after the 2004 graphic novel “Cowboys & Aliens” by comic writer Scott Mitchell Rosenberg.

Those looking for the alien invasion and are seeing it because of the sci-fi will have quite a wait. At least the first 40 minutes or so is nothing but pure spaghetti western in the best tradition, except for that little device. All that seemed missing was Clint Eastwood coming out of the saloon and lighting a cigar. Craig and Ford play their characters as well as any of the Hollywood gunslingers of old which actually hurts the remainder of the film. Because once it gets to the spaceship portion, the story goes downhill from there, turning into what amounts to the filming of a live action video game, which can be thrilling too. But the quality certainly suffers at that point on. And soon I wound up wishing that they’d just continued as a western.

Dolarhyde doesn’t really seem a big stretch for Ford. He’s played in westerns long ago and some could argue that Star Wars is nothing more than one set in space. His old, nasty persona in the film seems like just Ford acting as though he’s having a bad day in real life. British actor Craig, on the other hand, coming off of James Bond, really does well to portray himself as a part of the American western culture that he is very believable in the role. Wilde adds little to the film, which doesn’t give her much to work with, but provides a pleasing view in contrast to the mostly male cast. Rockwell is fun as the Bartender/Sidekick working some of the film’s lighter moments.

All in all, Cowboys & Aliens is a hard movie to rate. People seem to like whichever portion tickled their fancy instead of the movie as a whole. So we are going to cut down the middle basically and go with 4/5. It has some truly inspiring parts, but is dogged by some lackluster aliens and too many useless characters and conclusions that interfered with the plot.

Related posts:

1. Priest Rating: Movie: Priest (2011) Studio : Buckaroo Entertainment Info :...

Captain America

Rating: 4.7 out of 5 stars

Movie: Captain America (2011)

Studio : Marvel Studios

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 125 min

Website : captainamerica.marvel.com

Rating : PG13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the early days, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) just wanted to get into the military to fight for his country, but was deemed unfit to serve. It was then that he decided to volunteer for a program that needed a recruit for an experiment to turn an ordinary Joe into a lean, green fighting machine, one that would proudly defend the US. And so Captain America was born and his first mission is to stop the evil organization HYDRA run by the Red Skull, a menacing Nazi influenced villain. But the good captain is not alone. He has Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) at his side. Will he be able to triumph against his enemy?

The trailer did not do this movie justice. It really didn’t. What the trailer showed was a sort of lame superhero movie that looked almost as messed up as some of the others, but what we got in the theater was certainly a pleasant surprise. The movie has everything you would expect from a comic book film, but better. The action scenes were incredibly shot, full of all the power of these larger than life characters. The story was well balanced between his calling and his life, not sinking too far into either one to make the film forced. In fact, it was that delicate balance that made it obvious that there was a lot of care by Marvel to learn from the mistakes of the past and get it right this time. And they did.

For the comic book reader who loves Captain America, you are going to be thrilled. There are many, many references to the comic books and the director and writer were very aware of the legacy of the character bringing to life what was on the pages, not just using the name as a stepping stone to some sort of reboot. And even beyond that, the understanding that Captain America doesn’t live in a bubble in the Marvel Universe and these guys make their appearance as well. Howard Stark, for example, who founded Stark Industries and was the father of Tony Stark, which may sound familiar from Iron Man, has quite an appearance here in this prequel to that movie.

The acting is also very good. Evans, who played the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four, had tones down his usual sarcastic playboy rhetoric to portray Steve Rogers as he is, rather than how superheros are supposed to be. Hugo Weaving, who is known as Agent Smith in Matrix and from Lord of the Rings, gives a convincing and pretty menacing performance as the German bent on domination. Bucky is a bit older and wiser than he was in the comics, I guess to balance out the age of the characters in the movie, but still recognizable in the part as the character he’s meant to portray. And we always love Tommy Lee Jones who is the grumpy, but hard edged Colonel Chester Phillips, a character he’s played extremely well through the years.

An interesting thing about this film was that for those of us know a bit about WW2 history, especially in the cinema’s portrayal, this really does an amazing job of recreating that time period, to the point where you might think you were watching a propaganda film from the time. It is chock full of patriotism and good old fashioned flag waving. By the time you leave the theater, you might feel like joining the military yourself or running for public office. But then what else would there be from a comic book character who’s purpose is to honor the ideals of America?

All in all, we really liked this movie and recommend seeing it. We’d almost go as far as to say it’s probably one of the best superhero movies around, especially if you are a fan of the comic books, but the general audience should find plenty to love. I’m not a big reader of comics myself, beyond just knowing that there is a Captain America character, but really enjoyed it. And so we give it a 4.7/5.

Related posts:

1. Thor Rating: Movie: Thor (2011) Studio : The Weinstein Company Info...
2. Green Lantern Rating: Movie: Green Lantern (2011) Studio : Warner Brothers Info...
3. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Rating: Movie: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Rating: 4.7 out of 5 stars

Movie: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Studio : Warner Brothers

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 130 min

Website : harrypotter.warnerbros.com/

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Much to the delight of Potter fans everywhere, the final chapter is finally here after the wait from Part 1. As you may remember, Harry, Ron and Hermione were looking for the horcruxes that would destroy Voldemort’s ability to live forever, while the dark lord was trying to find the precious wand that could defeat Potter. He found what he wanted in the last film, but the trio have yet to find their treasures. And when the evil wizard finds out what they are up to, a war rages in a battle to end all battles. Who will survive? According to the one that will remain nameless, only one can live forever.

Of course, if you’ve read the book, you already know the answer to that. But for those that haven’t, we certainly won’t spoil it here, but merely talk about the film itself. And what an ending it is, filled with epic visuals, a return to wonderful locations that we hadn’t seen in ages, heart pumping action, and a true hero to root for. This movie has basically everything you’d expect the end to have. Director David Yates, who has taken on all the films since number 5, takes this one to even higher heights than the one before, building on the crescendo that has led up to this final moment.

But, with that said, there is a caveat. Any watcher of these films or readers of the book will tell you that the series gets much darker and horrific as the pages or images fly by. And this being the final chapter does have some horrific imagers and properly scary moments that may give parents of young children some concern. Of course, we’ve heard this just about every film since the Dementors were introduced. JK Rowling attributes the inclusion of such scenes to the acceptability of those that are also growing with the series. After all, kids that were 10 when they started watching the films would be almost 20 now, much like the main trio of the cast. But what is sometimes forgotten is that since Harry Potter is in book form and still a favorite for young readers, the film may present some scenes that are too intense. Now far be it for us to advise parents on what their kids can handle. That’s up to them. But we do want to say that we think that the PG-13 rating is well deserved here and so it’s something to keep in mind.

What can we say about the cast? At this point it’s so hard to really nitpick on their performance. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson head up an all star ensemble cast that are all amazingly comfortable in their roles to the point where their portrayals are so natural and all have been exceptional actors. Ralph Fiennes, who plays the Dark Lord, really does get to show off in this one, but we like how he plays Voldemort with a dark subtle villainy, rather than an over the top enemy that is often seen in such fare. There are others who we would mention here as being also very good, but we don’t want to spoil it.

And finally, how does the film look in 3D? Well, it is not a natively filmed 3D movie, which means it was converted from 2D and that conversion was not that great. It winds up being a lot like Clash of the Titans was, much better in 2D and a waste of money in 3D. Another aspect to consider is that this movie is very dark to begin with and wearing glasses that make the film even darker is not going to be helpful, even if there are some cool 3D effects. All in all, in our humble opinion, it’s not worth the extra cash.

In the end, it really is a fitting way to go out for the three that we’ve seen grow up in front of our very eyes in a world that both amazed and inspired. We will be sorry to see it go actually. Our rating is a 4.7/5 docked mainly for the less than spectacular 3D conversion. But honestly, no matter what we say here. The fans will go see it. Of that, we are sure.

Related posts:

1. Thor Rating: Movie: Thor (2011) Studio : The Weinstein Company Info...
2. Green Lantern Rating: Movie: Green Lantern (2011) Studio : Warner Brothers Info...
3. Captain America: The First Avenger Rating: Movie: Captain America (2011) Studio : Marvel Studios Info...

Zookeeper

Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Movie: Zookeeper (2011)

Studio : Columbia Pictures

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 104 min

Website : zookeeper-movie.net

Rating : PG

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

A mild mannered zookeeper Griffin Keyes (Kevin James) decides that perhaps taking care of the animals is not the most glamorous of jobs if he wants to catch the female of the species, in this case a very beautiful specimen indeed (Leslie Bibb). Having an offer on the table at a fancy car dealership, Griffin decides that it’s time to move on, but when the animals find out, they do the only thing they can do. Show him that they can talk and try to convince him not to go. And if he stays, they’ll teach him how mating works, even if it is a bit on the wild side.

It’s hard to review this film without referencing Mall Cop, Kevin James’ other comedy. In this, he plays basically the same sort of character he played in that, the poor schlep that just can’t get a break and is often the victim of the slapstick humor and degradation by his co-stars, who in this film are mostly wise cracking animals. But in all honestly, he really does excel at playing the bumbling chap with a good sense of comedic timing. You feel for the guy and this makes him a sympathetic character that you can root for, which is fun for the duration. It’s not as funny as Mall Cop, but it has enough laughs and good nature to keep both kids and adults interested.

The script is not inspired. At its heart, it is a romantic comedy and a bland one at that. Something we’ve seen hundreds of times before. Man loves girl out of his league and relies on friends, especially one particular girl who’s better suited for him then the one he’s trying to acquire. The difference is that his friends aren’t human. Keep in mind, that despite the marketing of the movie, including the above trailer, that like most stories of this nature, the friends are not the featured act. And this is the case with the critters. A good part is completely critterless, but thanks to some fairly decent pacing, it doesn’t slip into a sappy love story at any time, which the kids will appreciate.

The best choice in this film was not to fill it with cartoonish character animals like Hop or Alvin and Chipmunks, but with realistic zoo members voiced by some heavyweights in films and comedy such as Sylvester Stallone and Cher as the Lion and Lioness, Adam Sandler as the Monkey, Nick Nolte as the Giraffe, and the unmistakable Don Rickles as the insulting frog. It’s not hard to see why with a bevy of talented souls that the animals upstage their human counterparts in just about every scene they are in. It would have been nice to have seen them in a bit more of the film than we did.

I like Rosario Dawson because she seems natural in the projects she does. She can be that naïve sort of innocent young lady who is kind and caring, but also has that Latina spitfire that is ready to burst out when necessary. And it’s this persona that she has perfected along the way that made her a good fit for the role of fellow zoo worker Kate. The chemistry she has with James, although tempered due to what we suspect as bad scripting in places, is quite good.

Too bad we can’t say the same for the others. Leslie Bibb basically just overacts the somewhat shallow socialite to the point where she becomes annoying. It just seemed like just about any of 1000 actresses could have played the part and been much more delightful to watch. Ken Jeong plays his usual part as an Asian guy who is way out there and we don’t mean that in a good way, despite some of the laughs he got, and Donnie Wahlberg is just wasted in his role as Shane.

So how do we rate the movie? Well we actually liked it for what it was, which was a fun little comedy that is not full of belly laughs, but not boring and in some cases a lot of fun. But because of the high price of movies these days, we are going to give it a 3.0/5 and say that if you want to spend a lighthearted couple of hours at a matinee, it’s cool, but so is sitting at home with the DVD when it’s released.

Related posts:

1. Arthur Rating: Movie: Arthur (2011) Studio : Warner Brothers Info :...
2. 30 Minutes or Less Rating: Movie: 30 Minutes or Less (2011) Studio : Columbia...
3. Rio Rating: Movie: Rio (2011) Studio : Blue Sky Studios Info...

Transformers 3

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Movie: Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Studio : Paramount Pictures

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 157 min

Website : transformersmovie.com

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

During the moon missions in the 1960’s, the crew discovered the remains of a Cybertron ship called the Ark that had crashed while transporting a powerful new technology that could be used to save them all. When Optimum Prime discovers that he was lied to about the discovery, knowing full well what was in the cargo, he decides to take matters into his own team’s hands and plots to get it back with the help of some old and new friends. But the Decepticons are also aware of it and the two are in a race to see who can get its secrets first.

It’s a Michael Bay film and that means that there will be lots of explosion, utter chaos, over the top violence, things flying at you in 3D and of course, a hot woman in the center of all this male oriented hardware and testosterone. And with that in mind, if you like non-stop action without much care for story details and character development, then you will really like this one. The storyline and presentation, we’ll admit, is better than Return of the Fallen, which seems to indicate that Bay and Ehren Kruger (who wrote the previous installment) had learned a few things after the previous outing.

One thing they didn’t learn and we feel we should mention is that two and a half hours of pure action can be exhausting, especially in 3D. The amount of visual input with almost every scene being a complicated mess of hardware and stunts really started to weigh on the brain and the eyes especially. 3D is already a bit of a strain on the senses, and this movie, while doing it well, does take it to the extreme. A much shorter film, perhaps cut as much as an hour, would have been helpful in keeping that to a minimum, but maybe it’s just that I’m an older guy.

As to casting, you’d have to have pretty much lived in a cave to not have heard that Megan Fox was replaced in early shooting after comparing Michael Bay to Hitler. The actress was canned by Stephen Spielberg, who is the executive producer. He did not take kindly to the comment considering his background in relation to the holocaust. And so they got Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who is as beautiful as she is talented at being a model. But that runway experience does not translate well to her ability to act on the screen. And putting her into the middle of a major blockbuster like this did not help the cause. We did like Rosie’s classy English accent and her beauty was pleasurable to watch over Megan’s character, but if I had to choose between which acted her role better, it would have to be Fox, which isn’t saying much.

The voice talents of the robots really did overshadow their human costars, due to the great casting of some of the top names, especially Leonard Nimoy, who plays Sentinel Prime. The robot not only sounds like Nimoy, but was designed to resemble him as well, which is a nice touch. Peter Cullen, Hugo Weaving (Lord of the Rings), Jess Harnell, Charles Adler, and Robert Foxsworth are just some of the amazing choices that they got to really give these scrap metal giants a voice.

The remainder of the cast didn’t really stick out that much. If you’ve seen the first one, it’s about more of the same. There were no great performances to speak of, but then no one expects or goes to a movie like this hoping to see Academy award winning acting. It was fun to see Whedon alumni Alan Tudyk from Firefly and Dollhouse and the always cool John Malkovich.

All in all, we went there to see an action flick and we weren’t disappointed in this regard. Yes, it was a bit too long for the old eyes and some bad acting was present, we are still going to give this a 4/5 because it did live up to the promise of the trailer and our expectations of what we were to see.

Related posts:

1. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark Rating: Movie: Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (2011) Studio...

Green Lantern

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Movie: Green Lantern (2011)

Studio : Warner Brothers

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 105 min

Website : greenlanternmovie.warnerbros.com

Rating : PG-13

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

In a universe full of danger, there is a group of protectors, the Green Lantern Corps. These heroes, by use of powerful rings, stand between evil and those that they serve. But when Parallax, perhaps the biggest enemy they’ve ever faced, threatens their existence, the newest member from Earth is recruited to deal with the situation. But what this human named Hal Jordan realizes is that they don’t think he has what it takes to be a Green Lantern because he’s human and plagued by his own self doubt. Can he prove them wrong and save the universe in the process?

This summer is proving to be the season for superhero movies with Thor, Captain America, and now Green Lantern. And they all have their goods and evils, and this film is no different. It’s not the amazing film that it was hyped to be, especially not comparable to Star Wars by any means. But it’s not Jar Jar’s Home Movies either. The main problem the film has it that the story is overcrowded. The comic involves a very complicated world and trying to put that all into one film was part of its issue. It just felt too rushed. There were much simpler stories they could have picked out of the Green Lantern books that would have been far more structured than this one, and then gone back and provided back story much as Marvel did with Wolverine. In other words, we didn’t have to know everything.

And on top of that, there is the romance between Hal Jordan and Carol Ferris, played by Blake Lively. Of course, every superhero film must have a love interest, at least that’s how it seems to go in Hollywood, but it didn’t really need to be there to move the story along and in some ways, seem like a distraction from the story. Iron Man’s more subtle romance between Stark and his secretary was much better implemented. In a series of films, we could see this pair develop their relationship in the midst of his duties, but with all the material that they tried to cover, it was too much. Even though I do think that Miss Lively is a very good distraction.

Ryan Reynolds got mixed reviews from our group on his performance. Some that read the Green Lantern comics thought it was good and that he portrayed the character very well. For those not familiar with the story, it just seemed like Reynolds just being the same persona he puts into most movies. And it’s that knowledge of his previous antics in film that makes it hard to take Hal Jordan seriously at times when it is necessary to the story. Someone less known would have probably been a better choice, someone that could mold the character into his own, rather than trying to fit into the role like Reynolds did with mixed results.

The remainder of the actors did quite well in their roles, although they seemed mostly stereotypical, but Peter Sargaard and Mark Strong came through as their characters Hector Hammond and Sinestro, respectively. These two played the parts with all the zest they could which did make it more enjoyable, even though they were only in the film for a short time.

The visual effects were outstanding for the most part and the 3D was used quite well for a change, being not overly obvious, but still fun. The CG which is generally panned these days was okay, but the hanging on to the comic book visualization caused parts of it to look a bit fake, especially when it came to Parallax and the transition between Jordan and the Green Lantern. But it wasn’t enough to be so distracting as to pull one away from the fantasy.

The bottom line is that comic book fans of the Green Lantern, for which this movie is made, will have a much more positive look at it, then many of the standard theater goers that aren’t familiar with the material. And so we give it a 3.5/5 stars. It wasn’t a bad film, it wasn’t a super good film. It was just average and a fairly fun way to spend an afternoon.

Related posts:

1. Captain America: The First Avenger Rating: Movie: Captain America (2011) Studio : Marvel Studios Info...
2. Thor Rating: Movie: Thor (2011) Studio : The Weinstein Company Info...
3. Cowboys & Aliens Rating: Movie: Cowboys & Aliens (2011) Studio : Universal Pictures...

Judy Moody

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Movie: Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer (2011)

Studio : Reel FX Creative Studios

Info : Click Here

Runtime : 91 min

Website : judymoody.com

Rating : PG

Trailer :

Click here to view the embedded video.

Review:

Judy Moody (Jordana Beatty) and her brother Stink (Parris Mosteller) is left with their aunt, an artist and wild child herself, when their parents go away, leaving them to find their own summer fun. This is instead of the summer camp Judy wanted to go to. But like most kids her age, she wants to have a thrilling summer, and so invents a score card of things that can be done to earn points. And whoever has the most points has the best summer. Fortunately for her and her sibling, Aunt Opal isn’t very strict. In fact, she’s like a big kid herself. And so they spend the time ratcheting up the antics to stay ahead, determined to reach the top before school starts again, no matter what they have to do. Imagine Adventures in Babysitting, only wilder and more chaotic.

It’s often hard as an adult to review these types of films because the young ones don’t see things in the same perspective as we do. Children love to be grossed out and watch mischief unfold. They don’t care about plotlines and character development. If something is disgusting or slapstick, kids will enjoy it. Just look at cartoons these days or the Disney Channel. And this is basically the premise of this movie. The only thing we really know about Judy is she’s annoying. Her brother is odd and her aunt a bit crazy. The movie comes from a popular children’s book series by Megan McDonald, but unlike similar entries like Diary of a Wimpy Kid, this one stresses just the antics over any sort of substance, which is fun for the kids, but painful to watch for the parents or guardians that take them to see it.

Heather Graham, who is one of my favorite actresses, plays the fun and spirited aunt with all the enjoyment she can, and her beauty and just all out wild nature is fun to watch. I’ve often thought that she would have made a great hippie in the 60’s. Of course, that opinion probably formed after her part in Austin Powers, but still. This isn’t going to win her any awards (except maybe a Razzy), but you can’t say that she was flat or uninspired.

The character of Judy Moody is as annoying as the name. It’s not that Jordana Beatty is a horrible actress for her age. it’s just that the script is too over the top to allow her any kind of glimmer of acting. The whole film just feels like spending a day at Chuck E. Cheese with hundreds of kids at a birthday party and you are the mouse. For those parents who have had a large celebration there, you know what I mean. But again, it’s for kids, not adults. Kids have fun at the pizza place too.

So rating this film is difficult as a reviewer. I asked my grandniece who saw it with her mother, what she thought and she gave me a thumbs up. She’s 6 years old. But I have to consider what the parents who will be dragged to the theater think as well, so I give this movie a 2.5/5 stars and suggest that perhaps you wait for the DVD. This way they can watch and you can happily find something to do in another room in the house.

Related posts:

1. Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World in 4D Rating: Movie: Spy Kids 4 (2011) Studio : Dimension Films...
2. The Smurfs Rating: Movie: Smurfs (2011) Studio : Sony Pictures Info :...
3. Rio Rating: Movie: Rio (2011) Studio : Blue Sky Studios Info...