Total Recall (2012)

As a fan of Colin Farrell, I felt hopeful going into the theater. Sadly, the first hour of Total "Rekall" is jarring and laden with intrusive chase scenes that prevented me from appreciating the effort in futuristic elements and impressive CGI. I normally like quick camera cuts, but this doesn't need them or the hectic pacing. Enough, already.

The picture finally slows down, and the good scenes (if not minimum) become available. I was reminded of "Paycheck", about how the past self can cunningly leave clues and tools for their future self. These scenes offer the largest amount of character depth and information. Since they are over in 5 minutes, the film could use more of them.

Meanwhile, I was still confused. How does the plot device--I mean, how does the vast technology in the world of "Total Recall" function? Why are there women with 3 breasts, and inexplicable flashy waves overlapping the picture? Confusion can be intriguing, but only in small doses. If you lose your audience, it's over. There are moments in "Total Recall" that made me believe the filmmakers didn't care if they were the only passengers in a vehicle that goes absolutely nowhere.

And nowhere, indeed, is where this film goes. Yet, as I slowly begin to understand (or at least begin to form an understanding) the plot, another pointless chase scene emerges. Enough, already. How many times do I have to say it? Why bore the audience with yet another wasteful chase scene? We know Mr. Farrell isn't going to die--at least not yet. Instead of taking 5 minutes only for him to elude capture (again), dig some character depth or at least think up an interesting personality.

At its core, "Total Recall" is a neat concept. It has a chilling musical score, decent tension at times and a solid lead in Farrell, though he isn't given much to do here. With a duration of 2 hours, this film should've amounted to more than it actually does--and I don't mean 'tries to become'. This incoherent film doesn't try whatsoever. It's as if "Total Recall" becomes self aware (like the robots in Terminator, a much better futuristic film, and much simpler too) and knows it fails to be effective, so it lazily offers a dull conclusion that is unworthy of the profound elements it seemed to introduced earlier.

Lacking the zest and simplicity of the Jason Bourne movies, or even "Paycheck", this film becomes a victim of its own self-imposed low ceiling. The plot mostly runs in circles, ignoring my confusion and lack of excitement about a dull civil war in a world that has flying cars! When a film fails to be exceptional, it has no redeeming quality. Other than for this review, "Total Recall" is not worth being "recalled."

Men in Black III (2012)

While it is the 3rd entry in the franchise and these characters aren't doing much new of anything, Men in Black III far surpasses the abysmal sequel that came before it. While the plot about time-traveling is neat, it is limited and small in scope, but it still works and I found myself liking it. The humor is still there, the aliens are still there, and so is Josh Brolin who I enjoyed as a younger Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). As a fan of the lesser known comedy group, "Flight of the Conchords", I was also pleased with Jemaine Clement as the charismatic and wily antagonist.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Everything to be loved from the original Spider-Man films, but better in every way. More color, more humor, more energy, less sappy romance, more lighthearted tones, more action and far better CGI.

Andrew Garfield dons the "tekkie" Spider-Man suit in this dark and edgier reboot of the series that started going in reverse and thus needed a new portrayal. This film certainly drives forward with good pacing and high energy. The one word to describe this adaptation compared to the others? Intense. Everything is revved up, more faithful to the comic books and also more modernized for today's youth. Spider-Man sports some nifty goggles and it's neat!

Of course, there are the cliched "comic book movie" elements, e.g. Spider-Man makes his own webbing, but never runs out of it, using it up faster than a paycheck in some scenes that are great for humor but bad for realism. Then again, this is Spider-Man, so I'll leave the silliness of lizard-men and death-defying swinging to the pedants.

This is a great popcorn flick. The romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy is cute and not nearly as imposing as the MJ & Spidey one from the first trilogy. This portrayl of young love might actually go somewhere, without needing steamy kisses in the rain or excessive sex appeal to get it done, thus feeling more natural and less pretentious. Also gone is the be-all, end-all comic book rule: Nobody can know the super hero's secret identity. This is shaved away early on, without any melodrama, and it's a refreshing dismissal of a tiresome plot device we've seen so many times before.

This "Spider-Man" movie has more attitude and flavor than its predecessors, and it's definitely a good thing. It felt more serious to me without delving into campy humor like the old ones. This was effected by the stronger character depth, rather than the heavy and mawkish message from the others. These people feel realer and less like characters in a fantasy story about a boy who suddenly gains spidery abilities.

Ghosts of Mars (John Carpenter, 2001)

Of course, Jeff Imada did the fight choreography. It's solid, but Natasha Henstridge made me wish Sandra Bullock was the star here, and I use "star" quite loosely. Anyone with an ounce of sex appeal or stage presence would've been better in the "lead" role. There are no A-listers when there should be at least one, or a girl with higher sex appeal at least. All I got was Ice Cube & Jason Statham, who provide the only charisma for this film, aside from the goofy machete-wielding presence of the crazies.

The situation, however, writes this curious tale into a corner. In most shows, when a hero is put into a seemingly inescapable position, they must escape SOMEHOW for the show to continue. Even after they do manage to flee their captors, the viewer must wonder, "why'd they bother doing that bit in the first place?" It is tiresome and cliched. With "Ghosts of Mars", one has to wonder why it intentionally limits itself instead of growing into something that is far more captivating.

Just how could the heroes ever defeat this mystical "ghostly" parasite? At one point, the most knowledgeable person of the plague doesn't even have a response to that question. Even worse films leave their hero with some hope of a victory.

What are these people fighting for, and why are they always fighting 200 of these crazy beasts? Do these maniacs breed as fast as they run? Better yet, why not just heed the warning of the "ghosts" and go back to Earth? Mars can't be all it's cracked up to be if you're constantly being overrun by maniacs that love throwing razor sharp discs at people.

Don't get me wrong; "Ghosts of Mars" is better than I remember from the first viewing years ago. I completely forgot it had Jason Statham in it (of whom I'm a big fan), but he's underused here and let's just say character depth is duller than the red pigment of the planet.

I was also annoyed by the forgettable nature of the film. Yes, it's a John Carpenter flick and it has all of the feelgood action film touches, like the good guys being pinned down, gun battles galore, and some humor.

But what else does it actually offer? Unlike Aliens, it has no redeeming quality. 'Humans are stupid and should be slaughtered for exploring Mars' is all I received. "Ghosts of Mars" is not intelligent. It's half-baked, and it truly has nowhere else to go other than to give the heroes 500 more magazines of ammo so they can continue to shoot at an impervious entity rather than take a shuttle back to Earth.

I guess Ice Cube and the poor man's Sandra Bullock are doomed to die by the end of the film.

Surely, it didn't have to be that way.

Ghost Rider (2007, Mark Steven Johnson)

Ghost Rider isn't breathtaking or touching, but it was imaginative and spooky enough to capture my eye. As a fan of the darker side of fiction, the plot appealed to me and the natural elements are used creatively, even if each element's respective time-to-shine is inexplicably cut short. This turnout bothered me due to the wrongly lopsided balance of buildup/exposition and execution/payoff. But as I said, Ghost Rider isn't going to linger long in my mind. If it were, the brief action sequences would be a larger issue.

There is a lot of CGI in this picture. The presentation of it is too clean and sleek--or maybe it's a literal presentation--because it can't escape that "computer generated" look, even if certain effects like fire and wraiths stand out in a good way. Along with the heavy use of CGI, there is the typical poignant back story of any other comic book hero. Johnny Blaze was once a meager youth, and it's all very dull, even if young Johnny's concern for his father's smoking habit is genuine and wholesome. The problem is, we all know where the story is going to wind up so it can actually start, and the introductory exposition is overlong. Especially when it is all meant to justify the obvious outcome of the cliched romance that will serve later as a plot device, I much prefer the quick intro approach we saw in DareDevil. Nevertheless, the ball eventually starts rolling.

Nicolas Cage fits the role, but he is confined here. I'm not certain it's for the best, either. While the film's low ceiling of scope does "cage" the zany actor's crazy side, there isn't much he can offer to the role other than read the lines in a misguided southern accent, ostentatious lines that feel ripped right out of a comic book, those superficial statements that belong on posters, not as natural dialogue.

I did feel an inconsistent mixture of tones from Ghost Rider. Is it supposed to be campy, dark, action-packed, or solemn? I would've liked to see the film take a more solid approach down one of these avenues than see all this hodgepodge. When you're doing a story about fiery bounty hunters and 'Old Scratch', himself, it is expected for one to go full blown comical like "Bedazzled" or pitch black dark like "The Devil's Advocate." I'm not saying the comical bits rolled by without chuckles, but it clashes with the spooky villain's satanic plot of death.

Speaking of characters, there isn't much in that department, either, nothing on the level of inner struggle you'll find in the Spider-Man or Batman films. There are "good" guys, wicked incarnate fiery bounty hunters that are starving for adrenaline, and evil guys that just are. I do wonder why the evillest of them all looks so pampered, though, compared to his scary cronies. There must be a air-conditioned salon in Hades where one can get a nice shave, a bombastic demeanor and strapping overcoat.

Because it doesn't go deeper, even though I begged it to try, Ghost Rider was still enjoyable as a spookier-than-usual popcorn flick but clearly doesn't have the impact of other films, even those from the same genre, and suffers from the formulaic "comic book movie" blueprint it is "cursed" to follow.