Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

I'm not going to lie: I've been waiting for this movie for quite some time. I first learned of the existence of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter when it came out as a novel back in 2010, and since the first announcements of a movie, my interest was instantly piqued. Written by Seth Grahame-Smith, the same author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is portrayed as the secret journal of Abraham Lincoln, and uncovers the "secret truth" about how all of the actions in his life were dictated by the existence of vampires and his lifelong obsession with killing them. It's an absolutely absurd, yet incredibly entertaining premise, and the film adaptation brings the oddball charm of the book to life.

Despite Tim Burton producing and Wanted's Timur Bekmambetov in the director's chair, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has plenty of relatively unknown actors making up the cast. Benjamin Walker plays our 16th president from his teenage years into adulthood, and by his side is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World's Mary-Elizabeth Winstead as Mary Tood Lincoln. Walker and Winstead are both surprisingly good at playing both the youthful and energetic Lincolns of youth and the burdened family at the head of a war-torn nation. Also rounding out the main cast is Dominic Cooper as Henry Sturgess, Lincoln's mysterious vampire-hunting mentor, and Rufus Sewell as Adam, the head of all vampire operations in the United States. For a summer blockbuster action movie, all of the main cast is surprisingly good, and the depth of every character is explored through the choices the actors make.

Unfortunately, the great acting is not complimented by a very good script. The action scenes in the movie are amazing, but the script is painfully cheesy, and not in a good, let's-laugh-at-this kind of way. The voiceovers are ridiculously dramatic, the montages are predictable and cliche, and the chemistry between the leads is only about one step up from the train wreck that was Star Wars Episode III. On a personal note, I was sad that they left out his adventure with Edgar Allen Poe, but it was an understandable cut for an already long movie.

Overall, I was immensely entertained by the film, and yet incredibly disappointed at what it had the potential to be. The fight scenes are awesome, and it makes a great action movie, but it wasted some great talent on a very clumsy script that could be painful to watch when Lincoln wasn't swinging an axe through a vampire's face. It's not a wonderful movie, but it's a great movie to turn your brain off and thoroughly enjoy. I give it 6 and a half silver-coated axeheads out of 10.

J. Edgar

When I heard that a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover was being made, I, as a history major, was a bit wary. Hoover was a controversial and polarizing figure, and his secretive nature made documents regarding his personal life rare and incomplete, and it would be all too easy to play to some of the more scandalous rumors that surrounded him, regardless of their accuracy. On the other hand, when I heard it was going to be directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, I was excited at how well-made I knew it was going to be.

Well, I was pretty much right.

J. Edgar is a historically flawed, but otherwise impressive film. DiCaprio plays the title character as he tells his life story to a stenographer shortly before his death. His supporting cast is pretty impressive as well. Naomi Watts plays Helen Gandy, Hoover's personal secretary, and Judi Dench plays Hoover's mother, whose controlling nature hovers over Hoover for his entire life. The breakout actor in this film, though, is Armie Hammer, who most people would recognize as the actor who played both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network. In this film, he plays Clyde Tolson, Hoover's longtime friend, confidant, and rumored lover. Tolson is the most human character in a movie filled with cold-hearted bureaucrats, and Hammer is excellent at showing the struggle that is dealing with Hoover's abrasive personality in both a professional and personal sense.

Although it was well-acted and well-paced, I did have a couple of problems with the film. Probably the most glaring flaw of the film was the make-up. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong here, but the people responsible for aging DiCaprio and Hammer did one of the worst aging jobs I've ever seen. It was...it was just terrible. My other gripe is the aforementioned exploitation of the Hoover mythos. Whether Hoover was secretly gay or not is a mystery that might not ever be fully explained, but I hated the fact that it was not only conveyed as a fact, but became central to the movie's plot. As someone who has a soft spot in his heart for historically accurate movies (Public Enemies is one of my favorites for that reason), I had a really big problem with something that controversial being taken as canonical information on his life.

Overall, J. Edgar is a pretty fantastic film. Historically inaccurate, with glaringly fake age make-up, but otherwise incredibly well-done. The acting is fantastic, the pacing is great, and even the smaller directing choices, like angles and lighting, all do their part to tell the story of one of the most secretive public figures of 20th century America. I give it 8 blackmail files on public officials out of 10.

Carnage

A while back, a friend of mine sent me the trailer to this movie, and I got very excited. A Roman Polanski film starring four talented actors, set entirely in one apartment, about the devolution of civility in the face of adversity? Sign me up, right? Well, after a virtually nonexistent theatrical run (in limited markets, nonetheless), Carnage finally hit DVD, so I was very excited to go pick it up. I was thoroughly expecting to get blown away by a dream team of creative talent, but I have to admit, I was a little disappointed with what I watched.

Carnage is based off of the French play God of Carnage, and is centered around two sets of parents who meet to discuss an altercation between their sons. The Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) are invited to the home of the Longstreets (John C. Reilly and Julianne Moore) to meet and civilly talk through what happened and how to remedy the problem. As the conversation continues, conflict arises, and we get to watch what happens as the barriers of politeness slowly deteriorate. All four of the actors in the movie are on point, but the standout performance has got to be from Reilly. Constantly trying to diffuse the tension, his character seems weak at first, but as the passive aggression builds and the anger boils over, his character starts to lose his grip, and that's when we really get to see his serious acting chops.

My main gripe with Carnage is the pacing. It's a two hour movie set entirely in one location and focuses on one subject for the entirety of the film. While compelling in its own right, and a definite change of pace from the A.D.D.-friendly choppiness so rampant in modern film, it drags very badly in the middle third of the movie, as we watch the characters get fed up with one another at a snail's pace. The tension builds far too slowly, and it's dreadfully boring to sit through to get to the payoff that is the final third of the movie.

I walked away with the impression that Carnage is definitely a screenplay that is more fun to perform in than to watch. The characters have plenty of depth and nuance, the subject matter is compelling, and the chance to perform with that much emotional range is very alluring. However, the movie is about a half-hour too long and starts to feel repetitive at times. Carnage is a good film, it's just not the great one I was expecting. I give it 7.5 interrupting cell phone calls out of 10.

Men in Black 3

Ten years is a long time to wait to revive a franchise, especially without a reboot. Typically, after a few years of inactivity, it's a pretty safe bet to say that a franchise is either dead or being rebooted. But then you have your other franchises that come out of hibernation to give it one last hurrah, and that hurrah usually sucks. Look at the piece of garbage that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and tell me I'm wrong. But, as with any rule, there are always exceptions, and fortunately, Men in Black 3 made the franchise worth reviving.

When we last left Agent J and Agent K in 2002, they had fought through a weak sequel and no one was clamoring for a third film. Well, after a few cast shake-ups, they finally came out with a solid offering that outshines the second film in almost every respect. Gone are some memorable characters (Agent Zed, Frank the talking pug), but are replaced with some new endearing characters. Emma Thompson's turn as Agent O, the new head of the Men in Black, is a nice change of pace from Rip Torn's portrayal of Agent Zed, and Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords is surprisingly good at playing Boris the Animal, a powerful, brutal alien  criminal bent on destroying Agent K. But the runaway performer of the film is definitely Josh Brolin, who plays a young Agent K. The film deals mostly with Agent J discovering K's past, and Brolin does a really good job at playing the young version of an iconic character in the series.

Stylistically, the movie feels right at home next to the first two. The relationships between the MIB and the aliens, the CGI effects, and the offbeat humor is very much in the style of the first two. Barring the obviously cheesy scenes designed for 3D, it's pulled off with the same kind of cool as the original, making you feel like barely any time has passed between the sequels at all.

All in all, Men in Black 3 is a very solid sequel to a popular movie franchise. It's not quite as good as the original, but miles ahead of the second one in nearly every aspect. The humor is on point, the action scenes are tense and fun, and some of the acting is surprisingly well done. I'm not expecting it to win any awards, but any fans of the Men in Black series would do themselves a favor by watching this movie. I give it 7 time-traveling mishaps out of 10.