Movie Review: The Darkest Hour

     Alien movies really started to get famous in the last few years, and as a result a lot of them suffered from repetitive storytelling, and mostly a lack of storytelling and bad acting both put together with good effects and a high budget. Alien movies always seem to just focus on the effects and the action, which always ends up with the same, negative results, the question is, will The Darkest Hour do the same? With low expectations chances say it will, but are the chances always right?

    The Darkest Hour was another alien invasion movie. It was about four Americans, going their own ways traveling to Russia for no apparent reason, then they were attacked by aliens, for no apparent reason, then they went from hiding, to escaping, to protecting themselves to escaping again. The whole movie seemed like it was a sequence of random, non-explainable events, in fact it was a sequence of random non-explained events to start with, the movie was thankfully ninety minutes, but within those ninety minutes lied a lack of story, a lack of storytelling and a lack of story development if there was a story to tell and develop in the first place.

     The Darkest Hour also lacked character development and the mere existence of characters in the first place; a lot of the movie’s characters where just crash dummies and did not even have any significant impact to the movie in the first place. The only characters who actually mattered in the movie where Sean and Natalie, mainly because the movie focused on them the most and without them the movie would have most probably stayed the same, the movie was empty character wise, characters had very little significant impact and very little effect on the events which happened in the movie, and they had also had very little impact on my appeal on the movie as well.

     Another thing The Darkest Hour lacked was the element of surprise, even though the movie basically had no story or base plot to really follow, the movie lacked surprises, it had the exact same setup as every other alien invasion movie and I was able to predict almost everything that was going to happen in the movie, the movie was so unoriginal that nearly everything in the movie was predicted, it felt like playing chess with a bad and inexperienced chess player, predictable and easy to beat.

     The acting performances where mostly very poor, a lot of the actors such as Max Minghella, Rachel Taylor or Joel Kinnaman had some of the worst performances I have ever seen, I mean, they can’t even play bad characters the right way, little than actually play a real role, somebody should either teach them how to act or just remove them from the movie industry entirely.

   Despite all the movie’s very sharp rough edges, there were some very minor positives. Emile Hirsch and Olivia Thirlby did have the better performances than the others, they did not have good performances, there acting was mediocre at best, still though, they did a much better job than the rest of the cast which made the movie’s disaster crash a bit easier on me, another thing that actually saved the movie from being the worst movie of all time was the fact that the movie wasn’t boring, while the movie was lacking so much and had so many problems, it actually wasn’t a boring movie, and I think that came from the movie’s structure, which was actually pretty good on the movie’s standards, I mean, sure, the movie had no storyline to actually follow, but the events where put in the right places, which made a big difference on the movie’s quality, turning it from a horrible movie to an almost terrible movie.

     The Darkest Hour was simply a stupid movie. It had no storyline and no base for any characters, it was a poorly made and poorly developed movie which lacked surprises, lacked the need of characters and lacked acting talent which strangely wasn’t a boring movie, I mean, no matter how disastrous the movie was, it wasn’t really a boring movie. Overall, the movie was close to terrible, it had its minor ups but it had its many deep and bloody negatives, I think it’s not only like the other alien movies, but it’s also worse.

- Acting: 2/10

'Only two mediocre performances out of many terrible acting performances'

- Script: 1/10

'The movie's lack of keeping me bored saved it's script from being the worst I have ever seen'

- Story: 0/10

'No Storyline, simple as that'

- Presentation: 2/10

'The movie lacked a story, and lacked characters, but it's ability to keep me in the movie saved the movie from making me cry out of how bad the movie is'

- Effects: 9/10

'Interesting effects, the only thing the movie actually pulled off'

- Average Rating: 2.8/10

- Overall Rating: 1.3/10

Movie Review: Underworld: Awakening

      Movie series’ normally start to go downhill after the third installment, mainly because a lot of them get very repetitive and reliant on old plotlines, but there were a few successes though, but only to those fourth installments after a few year beak achieve some kind of success, this year kicked off with Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol, which was the first mission impossible to come out in six years, and another great example was one of the best movies of 2008, Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Scull, which was also a fourth installment which was released more than fifteen years after the third, however, this one is a bit different, Underworld: Awakening is a fourth installment to a mediocre series that has been running for less than ten years, the question is, can it be the first installment to make a significant difference for the Underworld series?

     Underworld: Awakening took place twelve years after the first two Underworld movies, where the series’ main character, Selene, wakes up in a lab then at some point discovers that she has daughter named Eve, who is a hybrid between a vampire and a werewolf like creature called a Lyken, who she has to protect and keep away from a group of Lykans, who are believed to be extinct, or almost extinct, but are actually secretly winning the war in a very unexpected and surprising way.

     Underworld: Awakening had a very simple and short storyline, which was okay, but the issue was that it was built through many sub-plots which were poorly developed, therefore the entire plot was poorly evolved, making the movie feel like a big group of events lined up feeling like they just randomly came in, I mean, it’s clear that the movie had a storyline to follow, but it’s storyline was so poorly developed and so poorly evolved that the movie just felt like it was made of a group of non-thinkable events.

     Underworld: Awakening was the most action packed movie of the series and one of the most action packed movies to come out in a while, which was an advantage for my opinion. The strong action in the movie gave enough thrills and excitement that the poorly structured storyline did not even seem affect at some point, the movie was full of action beating away every second, there was no time in the move for a pause and time to take a breath, which had some negative effects too, the movie lacked dialog and because of the action the storyline wasn’t given enough room to develop and evolve, but like I said, even though the story didn’t evolve the movie still felt fun, mainly because of its non-stop fun and exciting action.

    As for the acting performances, Underworld: Awakening actually did pretty well, however, the characters where more of the problem than the actors. A lot of the acting performances in Underworld: Awakening where one dimensional, why? Because a lot of the characters in the movie where one dimensional and poorly developed at the same time, why? Because of the poorly evolved and rushed storyline. I guess what I’m trying to say is that the acting performances and the characters where great as only individual factors, but when adding them to the storyline they both begin to fall one after the other, like dominos.

    Underworld: Awakening was a lot like the first three movies, fast and poorly developed with some very strong points at the same time. Underworld: Awakening lacked story and development, but characters and there interpretations where good as individual factors, also the action was stellar, however, having only individual components and stellar action won’t really cut it for a movie to be considered ‘good’, it would only make half a good movie, and that was exactly the case with Underworld: Awakening, it had half of what a movie needs to be good, making it an overall watchable movie depending on the person’s mood and taste, and overall a mediocre movie at best.

- Acting: 5.5/10

'The acting worked as in individual component, but when putting it with the poorly structured storyline, it didn't work as well as people would hope for it to work'

- Script: 5/10

'A dusty script which lacked story and character development, but the strong action made the script look somewhat passable'

- Story: 3.5/10

'There is a storyline, but it has a weak base and it's evolution was also weak which made the story seem weak'

- Presentation: 6/10

'The strong action saved the movie, yet a lack of story development and character development can still be spotted'

- Effects: 9.5/10

'Excellent effects, the movie had a dark, Gothic mood, which was beautiful to look at and was one reason why the action was spectacular'

- Average Rating: 5.9/10

- Overall Rating: 5/10

Movie Review: Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol

    ‘Returning movies’ are very few, but most of them are pretty good movies. They re-bring the feeling and excitement that there older procedures once had and gives people a chance to re-live them. In 2006, the first Superman movie in more than ten years, Superman Returns was out, which was a decent movie, in 2008 the first Indiana Jones movie in almost twenty years came out, which was a great movie, and in 2010, Tron’s sequel, Tron: Legacy came out, which was one decent sequel, and now, six years after the third Mission: Impossible movie came out, a fourth sequel revealed itself. Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol is the fourth Mission: impossible movie, and based on the series’ standards and a few of similar cases, it’s expected to be a good movie, but comparing to its expectations, how did it do?

     Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol was a very different sequel, the movie was basically about the IMF shutting down after a bombing in Russia, then in order to save his own life, and millions of other’s lives and the potential risk of getting into an America-Russian nuclear war, the series protagonist Ethan Hunt along with a new group have to find the man who started the bombing, find his plans and get rid of him without any external help.

    This Mission impossible movie looked like it had a lot of hype and excitement going on based on what’s planned on its storyline, and as a result, it had a handful of excellent thrills, excellent action scenes and it’s fair share of excitement, however, at the same time the plot did feel dragged on, the movie felt like it had a little more stalling than what it should have had, and because of that the movie didn’t have it’s type of excitement most of the time, which didn’t go up to my expectations, but at the same time, when the movie really kicked into the great action and the important scenes, it really kicked into having some very thrilling and some of the most memorable scenes in a while.

    The storyline also lacked depth even though the movie was fun and it had a good story, most of the movie’s stalling pointed one thing out to me, that the story lacked depth, so it was filled with a lot of filler, which is honestly a very rare situation for a good movie, I mean, the movie could have been an hour and a half but I just felt like the movie tried filling up to use up time, which effected on many things from the excitement of the movie to the general mood, making the storyline feel very shallow and in need for some kind of depth.

    I think the acting performances in the movie where all fairly decent, Tom Cruise had a very strong role as Ethan Hunt, however, many of the other cast members such as Michael Nequvist and Paula Patton had very one dimensional acting performances, which gave their characters one dimensional interpretations, however, even with the one dimensional performances, they still managed to play their roles in a decent enough level, mainly due to them being backed by the better performances.

   Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol was needless to say, a very good movie. It’s storyline stalled a lot, the movie  lacked depth, it lacked some excitement, and the acting performances felt a bit one dimensional, but when the movie’s strong sides, such as its strong action and it’s strong story points the movie can be one excellent one, however, due to its errors, Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol didn’t feel like it was supposed to feel and didn’t look like how it was expected to look like, it did have its positives, and it was a great movie, but it didn’t quite live up to my expectations overall.

- Acting: 8.5/10

'great acting, yet there where some one dimensional acting performances'

- Script: 8/10

'A decent script which stuck to the story, yet at the same time felt like it was dragged on and lacked some excitement'

- Story: 7.5/10

'A good storyline to follow, however, the movie stalled a lot which gave the storyline a shorter role and a smaller effect on the movie'

- Presentation: 7/10

'The presentation had it's strong points like the fun action, but the movie was stalled and it lacked excitement at some points'

- Effects: 9/10

'Strong, realistic and believable, it was beautiful to look at but sometimes the effects lacked concentration'

- Average Rating: 8/10

- Overall Rating: 7.5/10

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes 2: A Game of Shadows

   Sequels are not always made to complete the original, they are normally made to extend the series or in some cases to simply give more of what the fans want. There are a lot of sequels that gives what the fans want and they are normally not as good as the other types of sequels. I mean, look at some of the most recent sequels based on popular demand, Night in the Museum 2 was a terrible sequel, Kung Fu Panda 2 was good, but not as good as the original, and The Hangover 2 was a great movie, but failed to bring what the original brought. The second Sherlock Holmes was another sequel built on popular demand, but the question is, was the second Sherlock Holmes better than the fairly decent original?

     Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was about Sherlock Holmes dealing with the most important case of his life, about a man with his equal skill and intellect trying to increase the demand of his own weapons by starting an entire war around Europe,. The plot felt slow and detailed at the beginning, which was okay but it was a little too detailed which made it feel a bit dragged on, and the ending was rushed, I felt like because they took their time for most of the movie, giving as much detail as they possibly can, they quickly wrapped it up and made me feel like the heavy detail really was just built for nothing, don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie’s storyline and the ending, but I just felt like the movie started off as slow then ended as a rushed movie.

    Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows had many characters, and as a result they balanced between them nicely. Each of the characters was fully developed, they all seemed to have good traits and personal flaws that made them feel human, however, most of them seemed to have one very common problem, most of the characters on the movie seemed fairly emotionless to me, which comes down to another flaw, most of the actors did a great job playing their roles, however, along with those great performances came the same flaw for almost all the cast members, which was playing their roles without any emotion, particularly Robert Downey Jr., who played the best  role in the movie but due to the emotionless script, which was the main issue, Sherlock Holmes and many of the other characters had no real emotional role which gave the actors emotional roles to adapt to.

     Sherlock Holmes: a Game of Shadows had a lot of action which was fun and fast, it gave the movie a lot of breathing time, and a few cliffhanging moments, but it did feel a bit too familiar to the action in the first movie, a lot of the action was very similar and had a very similar flow, which is fun but it lacked a feeling of surprise at half the parts and was completely predictable a at a few other parts, which was a bit of a problem, but the fact that it was still fun and fast kept the movie going and kept the movie entertaining despite that predictable feeling.

     Sherlock Holmes: a Game of Shadows was a good movie. People will enjoy it but will not be fully satisfied with it when comparing it to the first, it had many strong points such as the strong plotline, the great acting and the fun action, however the movie’s slow-then-fast story development, emotionless plotline and predictable air gave it a few wounds here and there, but there is no denying that it’s a good movie though, Sherlock Holmes: a Game of Shadows really held its own and kept its self-balanced, due to that the movie was an overall decent movie, but just keep in mind, it was just a good movie, so do not expect anything mind-blowing or amazing from it.

- Acting: 8.5/10

'excellent, yet mostly emotionless performances'

- Script: 6.5/10

'strong script, but lacks balance in detail and lacks emotion'

- Story: 7/10

'great storyline, but lacks balance in detail and lacks balance in development'

- Presentation: 5/10

'great presentation, heavy yet predictable action along along with a lot of waiting though'

- Effects: 9/10

'strong effects which really give an 1800s feeling'

- Average Rating: 7.2/10

- Overall Rating: 6.5/10