SPOILERS AHEAD!

**************************************************************************************************

The final episode of The Sopranos was incredible, specifically with the last 5-10 minutes.  This may be the best TV finale ever. I keep hearing both sides: One side claims that David Chase, the shows creator, took a cheap way out and made an awful episode.  The other side that it was brilliant because it doesn’t package to Americans.  I reside more toward the latter, but certainly not in that elitist view.  Which brings about an interesting perspective.  A long standing issue between art and pop media, is the intellectual merit.  The final episode of this show proves to be a wonderful relationship of the two, in that many watched it and the episode itself has sparked conversation and provoked the educated and the laymen.  Apart from that view, I thought I’d touch base on some theories:

-The Screen goes Black and Tony’s dead: Many people have stated that when the screen goes black at the end, it is a reference to a line spoken by Bobby that talks about when you get “clipped” you “never hear it coming”.  I like this view, because it’s really masterfully done, if that is the intent.  I’m loving that you see Tony in the shirt he wore for season 1 as the last thing on screen.  Does he die? Does he live?

-The Cat was Adrianna or Christopher: This is pretty self explanatory, and I totally believe it to be the case.  I actually thought maybe the cat was bugged by the FBI.

-Tony Enters the Diner and See’s Himself: This is a theory I am taking credit for.  If you watch very closely, the photography for that last part begins with Tony entering a diner and peering into the restaurant, resting on the image of a figure.  The figure ends up being himself, but it seems to flash back to Tony standing in the doorway.  I don’t know what this means, or if my eyes fucked up, but in general, there’s something fishy about that scene.  Upon re-watching, I may be  able to rectify it.

For those who were dissapointed with the finale, I urge you to look at the final 8 episodes and assess blame appropriately. This season and specifcally the finale, suffered from a lack of activity in earlier episodes.  Given that the creative team had 8 episodes in which to finish this show, I can safely say that at least 2 of the episodes (the Vegas episode, the first episode at the lake house) were a waste of time and proved/showed nothing.  These hour long episodes could have been dedicated to more important plot lines and really drove the show home.  The finale was saved by a great penultimate episode and served to be a great episode itself.  I was upset there wasn’t more time spent to the impending doom of the war between Phil and Tony.  The arc suffered from unnecessary episodes.

All in all, if you have On-Demand or get a chance to see the episode, I urge you to watch it.  I’m also open for debate on this one guys, so comments will be very much appreciate and awesome.

  I’m a fan of the Shrek movies.  I wouldn’t put them on any of my top 10 lists, but I enjoy a big, green ogre as much as the next guy/gal.  Was I pumped for Shrek the Third? Nahhh…I wasn’t jumping up to see it, but yeah…I probably would end up seeing it.  The Shrek franchise seems to have followed the pattern of many successful other franchises in trying to up the ante this time around.  I remember the first Shrek being a new classic as far as animated movies, with an endearing main character and a funny side kick.  The second one, dare I say, could even be better than the first, with the introduction of yet another funny character, and some more adult themes, but still enough there for the kiddies.  Don’t the first two movies of Shrek compare to that of Spider-Man?  If that be the case, then the third movies of both seem to have matched up.

Shrek the Third suffers from Trilosyndrome(I’m patenting that one). This movie actually reminded me a little of X-Men 3, being that it was underwhelming and really didn’t bring anything fresh to the table and had a shorter run time than the first two movies. The voice acting, comedy and animation were all still there, but if that were all I was going on, I mine as well review one of the first two Shreks.  There really isn’t anything new or funnier in this movie that wasn’t in the first two.  It has some funny parts, some funny characters and plenty of little in-jokes, but overall doesn’t make it that fun.  In an attempt to not compare it to the first two movies, it’s a lackluster animated film.

So if Spider-Man 3 overdoes it and Shrek the Third under does it, wheres the issue?  There has to be a happy medium.  Theres gotta be something.  What is important in assessing Shrek the Third is perhaps it’s almost inherent or necessary need to want to be something bigger or better.  Shrek is the baby of Dreamwork’s Animation.  Animated movies continue to get better and try to be something else.  Genre wise, Shrek the Third needed to set a new bar and it didn’t.  Maybe that’s expecting too much, but for a franchise like Shrek to underwhelm, directly underminds how good the first two movies were.  So sorry ogre, donkey and cat, but you get 5 out of 10 Bones, for just being average with funny moments.

RATING:

“Artful yet draggy”

 Certain movies really get lost in the shuffle.  What with the concluding chapters of popular bank movies such as Spider-Man, Pirates of the Carribean and Shrek (the review on deck ladies and gents), little films can get lost.  This isn’t to say that Bug is a “little” film per say, but I would say most movies are little in comparison to those three aforementioned box office titans.  Bug after all has a star in Ashley Judd and a pretty known director in William Friedkin, he of Exorcist fame.  Suffice it to say, that I had caught glimpses of the trailer for this movie and really hadn’t seen or heard much about it.  I was VERY open-minded to the product.

First impression was going to be another Saw/Hostel knock-off, which it wasn’t.  Then I thought it was going to delve into Hills Have Eyes territory, which it didn’t.  I was intrigued.  It was a pretty original concept.  The horror of the movie didn’t come with person on person violence as in murderers hacking their victims.  This horror was purely psychological.  On that level, Bug is definetely a fine film.  The concept and plot were definetely on.  The preformances were eerie and frenetic by both Judd and her co-hosts. The art direction was really cool and the overall look and feel of the movie totally fit.

What the movie truely lacked was really any point of excitement.  This movie isn’t for everyone.  It won’t WOW audiences with anything particularly new, such as a movie like Saw did.  It’s merely a solid film that really kind of drags and didn’t really hold my attention.  While the premise was cool and the acting was on, the film lacked any real excitement.  It’s definetely a mind bender that challenges the audience, but doesn’t particularly entertain.  This is one of those on the fence movies where it certainly challenged me as a viewer, but didn’t really pique my interest. 

Maybe I’m getting soft, or maybe I’m a pop culture D-Bag, but I didn’t really like Bug.  Beyond the small parts that did impress me and the overall product that made me think, it didn’t serve as entertainment as well.  I tend to give good grades to the movies that entertain me, and not necessarily challenge me.  I’d feel like a complete jerk to really downgrade this movie for it’s potential “artistic merit”, because I think there is some.  I guess when I assign a certain criteria for grading movies, I always think of whether or not I’d see it again.  With the reviews for popcorn flicks I usually decorate this withering rag of internet tripe with, I find myself able to watch them again.  Bug I would not.  That being said, I’ll stick to my guns and only give this a 5 out of 10 Bones, for being artistic, but not necessarily strong in entertaining.

RATING:

“So fun and such a good follow-up”

Zombie movies happen to be the latest trend in horror these days. Of course this whole concept is owed to good ole George Romero, he of the ______ of the Dead movies. Back a few years ago, many clamored that Danny Boyle and his post-apocalyptic, British zombie flick, 28 Days Later, had reinvented the genre, having the zombies able to run and chase their victim, therefore heightening the tension. While I don’t know if I’d say that the genre was reinvented, it was certainly given a shot of adrenaline and kick ass.

28 Days Later is one of my favorite movies and when I heard about the sequel, I wasn’t amped for it, but would give it a shot. Then of course, being the trailer whore I am, I saw the trailer and really wanted to see it. So sue me. Dear Hollywood, I am a victim of your brilliant marketing schemes that are trailers. Keep in mind also that I was amped to see The Lake House based on the trailer. With trailers, you can’t really ever know.

With this movie, you really can. The trailer was accurate. From the moment the movie started, I had my fingers in my ears. To update readers who haven’t seen a movie with me that involves suspense, I don’t like loud noises. Visual things don’t bother me, but loud noises really scare me. If I don’t filter it, I’ll shit my pants. The first 15 minutes were so visceral and gut wrenching, that I nearly puked. I was so into it. It then segues beauitfully into the next setting of a post infection England and American military occupation of said area. The whole feel of the movie was just so spot on and offered so many cool moments of suspense, horror and action. It really is a total package. The entire mood of the movie is totally set by the director, and maybe even moreso than the original.

The movie doesn’t benefit from the acting talents of the first movie, but certainly doesn’t fall. The acting in this fit the mood and everyone excels in their preformance. My few qualms with the movie could be the deadening of suspense in the middle and a semi-bleh ending. Those were really it though. I also noticed that the production values of this movie were better than the first, which was somewhat of a disservice. I liked the gritty DV feel of the first movie as an aesthetic, but it certainly didn’t effect my overall mood for the movie. There were some spotty moments in acting and pacing and certainly a moment or two that was suspect in the frame of the story, but I was ok with letting them go, they were that minor. I would give this movie a 9 out of 10 Bones for scaring the shit out of me, which considering the fodder I’ve subjected myself to and the recycling of all ideas, is a benchmark for me.

RATING:

“Not a total miss, but dissapointing”

 When everyone’s favorite web-head swung back into theaters on May 4th, many expected the same tour de force as it’s predecessors. Whether it be the complete super hero movie in Spider-Man or the epic, romantic nobleness of Spider-Man 2, fans of the movies and comic book movies in general, clamored to see the third installment. If #3’s have taught me anything, it is be cautious(i.e. X-Men 3, Matrix Revolutions etc.). But for some reason I wasn’t worried about the third Spider-Man. The same director, Sam Raimi had the same stars in Tobe and Kirsten. What’s there to worry about? But like a proud father on prom night, I got phone calls from all the other parents telling me the bad news. My son had lost prom king. (Wow I just realized how bad that metaphor is…but alas poor readers)

People texted me, IMed me and called me, complaining about how bad this movie was. I’m never one to really buy a review if it’s a movie I wanted to see. Reviews help me with movies that I sit on the proverbial fence with. I was seeing this movie regardless and barring the negative reviews I went to the theater, with as open a mind as I could. This was a harder feat than most could acknowledge, seeing as how I had been inundated with bad reviews. And let me say this; for the most part, you nay sayers were wrong.

I was dissapointed. To a point, very dissapointed. But I was entertained. This movie doesn’t stand as a suitable bookend to the first two, but certainly wasn’t the worst super-hero movie ever. As a matter of fact I thought it had some really good things going for it. For example, Tobey Maguire is now understanding Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He sold me in this movie. He touched upon it in the second film and really couldn’t grasp it in the first movie, but definetely gets it in the 3rd film. Topher Grace was good as Eddie Brock. The action sequences were breath taking and fun, and barring my issues with story, the final act battle was spectacular. It had some romantic moments, some geeky moments and some genuinely funny moments. The movie has good content and good concepts, but doesn’t execute clearly as a story.

Let me equate this situation: Spider-Man 1 and 2 are like reading a graphic novel or a story arc over a series of comic book issues. Spider-Man 3 is like being forced to read a box full of your uncle’s back issues that are all Spider-Man: They are fun to read and watch, yet nothing ever connects. This is the problem Spider-Man 3 mainly suffers from. It tries to fit so much into so little, even with an appropriate run time. The script tried to do way too much and wasted too much time on unnecessary things. Sam Raimi took a few chances with scenes (i.e the dancing and symbiote Peter) and missed. It was distracting and irritating, but didn’t make it an awful movie. The parts that really got to me was the rushing of so many pertinent and potentially franchise continuing characters and stories. I can’t say without ruining parts of the movie, but suffice it to say, why so much?

I feel like #3’s suffer from this internal need for the film-makers to outdo themselves rather than notice what worked well for them at first. It’s all about upping the ante and making this one better than the last. But what they fail to see is what worked the first two times around, and how the mistakes of the first two can be better reflected in your next installment. And it’s not like there was a book Raimi had to follow. It’s a huge friggen universe, with thousands of storylines. This was a well produced, entertaining, mis-step. The writing and the decisions that ultimately allowed the writing to undo this potentially epic movie makes this movie very dissapointing to me, because I could see what it could have been. Albeit, it’s still one entertaining movie with certainly plenty of cool story and characters to go around. Make this a movie you see. This regrettably gets an 7 out of 10 Bones. Thats because its above average entertainment, that makes mistakes like a below average script.

RATING: