EPIC is a decent film. The animation is gorgeous, and the story is interesting enough to be engaging, but the characters are lacking. I got the sense that this would be the case going in, and, frankly, thought about just renting the movie. However, Christoph Waltz plays Mandrake, the leader of the villainous Boggans. Waltz is one of the VERY few actors whose mere appearance in a film is enough to get me interested in it. To put it simply: I’ll watch any movie he’s in.

After the death of her mother, M.K. (Amanda Seyfried) moves in with her father (Jason Sudeikis), an absent father who is obsessively studying the mysterious Leafmen in the nearby forest. This obsession cost him his marriage and his daughter. Frustrated by her father’s ongoing obsession, M.K. leaves, only to be shrunk by the queen of the forest (Beyoncé Knowles). Given responsibility over a flower bud that is the future of the forest, M.K., along with Ronin (Colin Farrell), leader of the leaf warriors, and Nod (Josh Hutcherson), must protect the bud from the Boggans until it can bloom.

I really enjoyed the story – I thought it was fun, and at times it was quite humorous. Unfortunately, the writers of the film did not develop the characters enough. Each of the main characters were essentially different stock characters. The actors did the best they could with the material they were given, and Farrell and Waltz stand out from the pack. Both were charismatic and their characters were easily the most interesting ones. It’s just too bad they weren’t given more material to work with, because it would have been quite easy to develop both characters further with only a few additional minutes of screen time. I didn’t find anything interesting about Seyfried or Hutcherson’s characters. Frankly, I would have been happy to see Farrell play the sole lead character, but I imagine his tough, stoic character wouldn’t have appealed to children!

I saw the film in 2D, which was possible since I went early in the day, when theatres tend to hold the 2D screenings here in Winnipeg. I can’t comment on the quality of the 3D, but I didn’t feel I was missing anything in 2D. The animation is gorgeous – I loved the contrasts between the lush forest and the dead forest inhabited by the Boggans.

I don’t imagine EPIC will end up being particularly memorable, but it was fun, and, at times very touching. The lush animation makes it worth seeing in theatres!

My parents hadn’t seen either Taken or Taken 2 so over the weekend we rented both. I saw Taken in theatres and thought it was a fun and surprisingly compelling action film. It’s also the film responsible for giving Liam Neeson his current action film career.

In Taken 2, Bryan (Neeson), his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and his ex-wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen) are recovering from the ordeal of the last film. Kim has a boyfriend, much to Bryan’s chagrin. When Bryan goes to Istanbul for work, he invites Kim and Lenore, but the family members of the people Bryan killed in the first film want revenge and kidnap Bryan and Lenore. Will Kim be able to rescue them, with only the instructions of her father via mobile?

As one can tell from the summary, it’s remarkably similar to the first film. Essentially the film is about Liam Neeson kicking the crap out of evil Albanian folks who think sex trafficking and kidnapping are cool. If we’re thinking logically – what are the odds of the family getting into the exact same situation again? And – wouldn’t Kim have some pretty severe PTSD symptoms, especially since the events of this film are happening maybe six months after the events of the first film?

But – wait: it’s an action movie. Logic escapes action movies. No, it’s not great, but it managed to entertain me. I wanted to see Liam Neeson act like a complete and utter badass and that’s what I got. The story itself is rife with plot holes, and inconsistencies.

Frankly, I’d just stick to watching the first Taken, which is a pretty fun movie. The second one is still fun, but it ventures a bit too far into the realm of ridiculous. But I was entertained, so it wasn’t all terrible!

Apparently there’s talk of another sequel, which is a stupid idea. Why can’t we just have one-off films anymore? Yes, the first one was a surprise success, but why did they have to go and make a sequel in the first place? I firmly believe that a sequel should only be made if it adds to the first film and/or improves on it. Don’t rehash the first film in order to make easy money! And don’t even think about rehashing it twice. Will we ever see a situation where a film is a surprise success and the filmmakers and producers decide not to make a sequel because they don’t want to jeopardize the integrity of what they created? Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I don’t know if that would happen anymore. And if it did, perhaps the studio would just fire everyone involved and craft a sequel using a new writer/director. It’s a shame, really.

Star Trek Into Darkness is, without a doubt, the best film of the year so far. It’s fun, thrilling and features some truly great moments between members of its incredibly talented cast. J.J. Abrams did an awesome job directing it and replicating the success of its 2009 predecessor.

After an attack on Starfleet in London, it is determined that John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a former Starfleet member, is responsible. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) sends Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and his First Officer, Spock (Zachary Quinto) out to get justice on behalf of those who were murdered. Kirk, Spock and the rest of the Enterprise crew quickly realize that they are very much in over their heads. What must be done to defeat John Harrison?

I’m repeating the advice that I seem to be giving a lot these days: go in blind. I wanted to know as little as possible about the film, but, I did manage to have one of the surprises spoiled for me. One of the downsides of social media, I suppose. Luckily, it was a very minor spoiler, but do what you can to see it as Abrams intended: knowing as little as possible.

While the film did technically open on the 16th, I saw it on the 17th, and it felt like opening night. The IMAX theatre was full, and the audience cheered and clapped at certain moments during the film. I love going to films on opening night because of the pure enthusiasm involved. There’s always a great energy in the theatre.

Star Trek Into Darkness is certainly darker than its predecessor (as evidenced by the title), but the humour that made the last film so delightful is retained. There are many moments that are uproariously funny. The cast has such great chemistry and play so well off each other – especially Pine and Quinto. I loved the way the film explored their friendship. Cumberbatch was brilliant in his role. He’s charismatic, bonechillingly cold and menacing. He was perfectly casted. I’ve been aware of his talent as an actor for a number of years now, so I was thrilled to see him in this film.

I saw the film in 3D, but actually completely forgot that it was 3D after the first sequence in the film (which was fantastically shot). So I guess it goes without saying that the 3D failed to impress me. See it in 2D if you are able to. Aside from the lackluster 3D, the visual effects are beautiful. There’s one sequence that takes place in space that is extraordinary.

I left the theatre feeling the great rush and enthusiasm that comes from seeing a fantastic summer blockbuster. I can’t wait to see Star Trek Into Darkness again.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is based on the mashup novel of the same name by Seth Grahame-Smith. While I do give it points for originality and an amusing premise, ultimately it wasn’t particularly successful.

Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) saw his mother murdered as a young boy and has sworn vengeance on the man who killed her. As an adult, he attempts to kill the man, only to fail and be rescued by Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), a vampire hunter. He reveals the existence of vampires to Lincoln and teaches him how to hunt them. Vampires are an ongoing threat to Lincoln and other Americans – culminating in the conscription of vampires into the Confederate army by Adam (Rufus Sewell), the leader of the vampires.

The biggest problem with this film is that it is played completely straight. You simply cannot make a film about Lincoln killing vampires with an axe and not include some humour and irony! I mean, come on! The action sequences were deliciously campy, but the rest of the film could have used a dose of humour.

Major events in the film were tied in with actual historical events. It was an interesting idea, but, unsurprisingly the connection between vampires and the events of the Civil War was weak, at best. I also thought that Adam was very under-developed and as a result, he was completely non-threatening. I got the sense that Adam’s ties to anti-abolitionists was simply a convenient way to make him a more “natural” villain.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is given nothing to do as Mary Todd Lincoln. She’s a fascinating historical character and I would have liked to see her do more in this film – especially during Lincoln’s time in the White House. Anthony Mackie plays William Johnson, Lincoln’s best friend, and he doesn’t have much to do, either. His character could have been intriguing, but he ended up being nothing more than a sidekick.

Director Timur Bekmambetov knows how to direct action sequences – I’ll give him that. They were beautifully shot, fun to watch, and he made effective use of slow motion, which added to the campy feel of the film. Watching Lincoln kill vampires with an axe was fun!

This could have been a delightful film, had Bekmambetov had the good sense to inject some irony and wit into it. Instead, much of it falls flat. It’s a shame, because I loved the idea of it, and I love original ideas in cinema, period.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is available on Netflix.

I am quite openly a big fan of Baz Luhrmann. I love his style of filmmaking, with its emphasis on flair, and colour. His films are delightfully over-the-top. The Great Gatsby is no different, and it generally works very well. If you’re a fan of his other work, you’ll love The Great Gatsby.

Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a budding author and bonds salesman and is renting the cottage next door to a huge mansion owned by the mysterious Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby throws huge, weekend-long parties, and invites Nick to one of them. Nick, the cousin of the wealthy Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) who is married to Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), re-introduces Daisy to Gatsby at his request, allowing them to begin an affair.

DiCaprio was perfect as Gatsby. He perfectly captured the essence of what makes Gatsby such a tragic figure: his longing for Daisy. He was absolutely heartbreaking. He plays Gatsby with an almost youthful naiveté. Mulligan was decent-enough as Daisy, but I felt that Luhrmann failed to capture Daisy’s character.

I also had some problems with what Luhrmann did to Nick. The film itself has a framing narrative out of necessity, as in the book, it is Nick telling the story. In the film, Nick is writing Gatsby’s story from a mental institution. As I read the book, I got the sense that Nick was the most “put together” character in the story, and I find it hard to believe that following the events he’s writing about he’s become so unglued, so to speak. Having Nick write the story from a mental institution certainly is convenient, but it’s not true to the character and Luhrmann would have been better off finding a different framing device.

I read the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and it was a beautiful critique of the American dream and the downside of excess. The decadent sets and costumes capture this theme perfectly. The huge and ambitious party scenes feature men in dapper suits and women in gorgeous dresses. It’s beautiful, over-the-top and heavily romanticized.

The soundtrack is excellent. It’s anachronistic (think Moulin Rouge!), and while, initially rap music may seem out of place in the film, somehow, it works. Jay-Z did the soundtrack, which features artists such as Lana Del Rey, Florence and the Machine and Jack White.

I saw the film in 3D, and I wish I hadn’t, because the 3D was a total waste of money. I didn’t feel any more embroiled in the story, and I think I would have appreciated the visuals even more if I’d seen it in 2D.

Hachi: A Dog’s Tale is a remake of the Japanese film Hachikō Monogatari. Both films are based on the true story of Hachikō, the Akita who faithfully waited at the train station for nine years after his master’s death.

Parker Wilson (Richard Gere) finds a puppy at the train station during his commute home from work. His wife (Joan Allen) does not want the dog, but gives in when she sees the bond the puppy and her husband share. The puppy’s collar has the word “Hachi” on it – Japanese for the number eight, so Parker names him Hachi. When Parker suddenly dies of a heart attack, his family and Hachi are heartbroken. Parker’s daughter (Sarah Roemer) tries to take Hachi home, but when he consistently returns to the train station, she lets him go. For the rest of his life, Hachi waits patiently for his master to return.

Just a word of warning to anyone who wants to see this film: it’s really, really sad. Like, Kleenex box next to you and wailing into a handful of tissues sad. I love animals, so these types of movies tend to hit me pretty hard as it is. It’s a beautiful story of loyalty, love and devotion. Animals may love differently than humans do, but there’s no denying that animals grieve and know when something has happened to their owner.

I really liked the film. It’s a simple story, and immensely touching. I dare you not to cry – truly. As I watched it, I couldn’t help but think that even the hardest of hearts would be softened by the film.

The one flaw would be that the human characters really aren’t all that developed. Even the audience doesn’t really have the chance to get to know Parker – instead we know him as Hachi’s owner. This didn’t bother me much because I saw the film as being about the dog and being from the dog’s perspective, but this may irritate people who don’t like dogs quite as much as I do (though I am a cat person at heart!).

If you’re a fan of films about dogs – or an animal lover in general, I’d urge you to check out Hachi: A Dog’s Tale. It’s available on Netflix. Just be sure to have a box of tissues nearby and be prepared to hug your animal companion a little bit closer afterwards.

After aliens known as “Scavs” destroyed the moon and much of Earth, humanity has reconvened on Titan and Jack (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) are assigned a mission to keep the hydrorigs that supply power to Titan safe. Sally (Melissa Leo), their commanding officer, watches over them remotely from the Tet, an escape vessel that’s orbiting the Earth. While out on a mission, Jack discovers a ship that’s crash-landed on Earth and rescues Julia (Olga Kurylenko), a mysterious woman he has scattered memories of. Julia’s arrival signals a change, and Jack realizes that things may not be as they seem.

The movie itself was interesting enough, but I actually found it quite predictable. I won’t reveal any spoilers from the second half, but I will say that I accurately predicted every twist and turn in the film. Perhaps this is because I watch quite a few science fiction films! However, the story is a bit formulaic, but it’s still an enjoyable film.

Cruise is playing the same sort of character he plays in most of his movies. He does a good job in the role, and he was great to watch, though. I was impressed with Riseborough – her character has an interesting psychological profile. I preferred Victoria to Jack. Kurlyenko wasn’t bad, but her character wasn’t particularly well developed and was really bland. Frankly, for the most part, the ideas and themes of the film shine far brighter than the character development.

I was very impressed by the cinematography in the film. Jack and Victoria live in a place called Tower 49, and the house at the top of the tower was beautifully designed. The shots of the landscape during twilight hours, the idyllic landscapes and the dry desert sand dunes were all gorgeous. Whoever scouted the different shooting locations did a marvelous job. I was glad I went to see the film in theatres for the cinematography alone. I was also happy to see that it was not in 3D, as most blockbusters are nowadays.

I was quite happy to see that Oblivion will almost certainly end up being a “one off” film. There were no openings for a sequel, which seems to be rare nowadays. Most major blockbusters are either part of a franchise, or the start of a franchise. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing (we all know I’m a huge superhero film fan!), but it is nice to see a studio take a chance on a film that won’t be a franchise, and one that is based on an original idea. Director and co-writer Joseph Kosinski based Oblivion on his unpublished graphic novel. Now – will we ever see that graphic novel published? I’d love to read it someday.

Ultimately, I enjoyed Oblivion, and it’s worth seeing in theatres if you’re a science fiction fan.

Iron Man 3 is divisive, to say the least. It’s also the ballsiest Marvel film yet. Shane Black wrote and directed the film, and in many respects, it is reminiscent of his previous work in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

After the battle in New York, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a changed man. He’s struggling with anxiety, and instead of going out and saving the world, he tinkers in his lab, creating new Iron Man suits. Rhodey (Don Cheadle) is re-branded as the Iron Patriot and has taken up some of the Iron Man duties, and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) runs Stark Industries. When the terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) attacks Tony’s house, he must deal with his demons and fight a threat that has him out-gunned.

What I appreciated about this film is that we got to see a lot of Stark outside the suit. The film grappled with Tony’s connection to the suit – does the suit make him Iron Man or is he Iron Man even without it? I’ve always preferred Tony without the suit, because I find his character fascinating, and Downey Jr. was excellent in the film.

The film tackles the well-known Extremis storyline in the comics. Guy Pearce is Aldrich Killian and Rebecca Hall is Maya Hansen – a former flame of Tony’s. Pearce is absolutely fantastic in his role, but, unfortunately, Hall did not have a whole lot to do. Maya was a completely unnecessary character, and it would have been very easy to write her out.

There are a lot of surprises in this film, and it truly is best to go in blind. My jaw dropped a few times over the course of the film! However, the surprises are where the film gets divisive. While, overall, I enjoyed the plot turns, they were a bit messy and created some inconsistencies. Black attempted to explain away the largest inconsistency, but it came across as clumsy. And, the motivations behind some of the actions different characters take is not explained particularly well. An attempt was made to explain them, but this was also handled clumsily.

Yes, there were some weaknesses in the film, but it was considerably better than Iron Man 2. The characters were stronger, and the action was far better (there is an air sequence that is very, very impressive). The humour in the film is excellent and rivals the first film.

One minor pet peeve I had (and I think this is more the fault of the theatre than the sound editing!) is that, at some points, the bass in the theatre was so overpowering that I could not hear the dialogue during action sequences. I saw the film at the IMAX theatre, and the sound was so powerful that I could feel the floor vibrating. Usually the sound in the IMAX theatre is far superior to the sound in a regular theatre but in this case, I have the feeling that the theatre employees made an error setting up the film, or the sound editors on the film made some mistakes. I’ll have to see the film again (perhaps, in a “normal” theatre) so I can catch the dialogue that I missed.

The Queen of Versailles is a documentary film about David and Jackie Siegel and their family. David Siegel is the owner and founder of Westgate Resorts, and when the financial crisis hit, they were in the process of building their dream home. This home was modeled after the Palace of Versailles and is the largest home in the United States.

The documentary itself is a fascinating look into the lives of an uber-wealthy family. At the same time, it was also infuriating, because we got to see how spoiled their children are and just how out-of-touch they are, especially Jackie. Jackie has numerous dogs that use their house as their personal toilet, and when the financial crisis hits, she found the pet lizard dead in its cage because her niece could not be bothered to go to the pet store to buy it food (“nobody would drive me!”). This same niece did seem to have an understanding that one tends to get used to being wealthy and that it does not necessarily bring joy, because you’re always wanting more things.

Director Lauren Greenfield really lucked out in a sense, because the economic crisis gave her a far more interesting documentary. It was fascinating to see how the family reacted to the crisis and the trouble it plunged them into. I found myself feeling a little bit of sympathy for them, even if I do feel that most of their troubles stemmed from living beyond their means (even the wealthy can spend far too much!) and making poor business decisions.

Ultimately, I really disliked both Jackie and David – primarily because of the great disservice they were (and may still be) doing to their children. They seemed to be raising them with the mindset that they do not need to amount to anything, because they will be receiving tidy inheritances from their parents. This is so wrong. It made me think of the famous Warren Buffett quote, where he says the perfect inheritance is: “enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing”.

I do highly recommend the film, because it is so interesting, and it’s a great look at the impact of the Great Recession. I can’t imagine living the life that David and Jackie are living, and I wouldn’t want their lives. I would find no joy in a huge mansion or vast amounts of material goods. I don’t need maids or nannies, either. The audience does feel a level of schadenfreude when watching the film, because so many people around the world have been hurt deeply by this recession so it’s somewhat cathartic to see a wealthy family run into financial troubles.

The Queen of Versailles is available on Netflix.

I’m really, really excited for this film. Thor: The Dark World is my most anticipated movie of 2013, so, needless to say, I was pretty giddy when the trailer was released last week. Thor is my favourite of the pre-Avengers Phase One films. I’m also very eager to see how Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) get along in this film. After the events of Thor and The Avengers, the relationship between the brothers would understandably be very tense, but the trailer teases a potentially interesting dynamic. I’m so excited!