Noah

*Be Warned* I am not going to bring whatever religious allegiance I may or may not have into this review at all. If you are looking for a critic to say how good god is or how science does stuff, please look elsewhere.

To religious for the atheists, to not-religious for the Christians

....Oh I'm sorry do you not know the back story of Noah and the Ark? Well, let me give you this, Noah get's a sign that the creator seeks to destroy the world as well as the wickedness man has brought to it. The creator tells Noah to build an ark and bring two of every animal onto it. People try to stop him from doing this. Done.

Sorry, but if you don't know the back story to this movie I don't really know what to say beyond that. Now for the review.

I try not to curse in these articles, but HOLY SHIT was this movie good. It wasn't just good, but also bizarre and interesting. I don't know how they could make a story like this (which has been retold a countless number of times) interesting but they did it. I loved the amount of detail they went into, not forgetting even the smallest insect on the ark. I liked the events during the family being on the ark. There wasn't a whole lot I can think of that I didn't like about this movie, and as I stated it has nothing to do with my religious views. There comes a time when a viewer just has to appreciate a movie for what it is, regardless of what it was based on. You could tell me "Jurassic Park" is the worst movie of all time due to the fact that you don't like dinosaurs, that will not stop me from loving the script, the acting, the cinematography, everything. Unfortunately, I don't know how to say why I loved the script so much without giving away something vitally important to the experience of seeing this movie for the first time. So I have to ask you to trust me on this. You will be on the edge of your seat for a good portion of this movie, and enthralled to find out how they come through all of this or even if they will.

The acting in this was some of the best I have seen from all parties involved. It was great to see Logan Lerman act alongside Emma Watson again, and both of them seem to have put their hearts and souls into being absolutely outstanding for the project. Russell Crowe puts forth the best acting I have seen from him since.... ever actually and that is saying a lot with his track record. Their is a specific sequence on the ark I am referring to, and you will know it when you get there. Jennifer Connely and Anthony Hopkins may just be in the background half the time, but the scenes they have are some of the best in the movie (aside from the scene with Crowe). Ray Winestone was quite possibly the most evil thing I have seen on a screen, while also being the most down to earth at times and I loved it. I don't know if it was just how big the paycheck was for them or if they really, truly cared for the movie, but everyone performed at a near flawless level.

The cinematography could be the best I have seen all year. The shots in this are all breathtaking (literally you will gasp for air at the beauty). There is CGI of course, but not an overwhelming amount. If I ever got to meet the man in charge of this I would ask him why he didn't put some of the stills from this in a museum.

I could go on and on about how great this movie was and how you should give it a shot; but in the end this is one of those rare occurrences where it comes down to you, and no matter how much blathering I do will change that. Religion is the great equalizer here, and for once this movie is going to stand somewhere in the middle. Either you will be too religious to even consider it, or too against religion to even consider it. I am going to admit that I went into this movie with low expectations, but the great thing about this is that it changed my attitude. That is the mark of a truly great film, regardless of the story it is based off of. Give this movie a shot, I promise (no matter which way you lean) you will enjoy the ride.

Final Verdict: Buy It I could watch this movie twenty times and feel completely at ease. This is well worth your time and money, it should enjoy a spot on your mantle of purchased film. Can I please just have every historical/religious movie done like this?

Muppets: Most Wanted

The first one set the bar too high apparently

In the newest installment from The Muppets we leave off exactly after the events of the most recent installment. The Muppets are a "big deal" now and they are approached by an agent named Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais) who convinces The Muppets to do a world tour. Little do The Muppets know that Dominic Badguy is working with an international criminal by the name of Constantine, who bears a striking resemblance to Kermit the Frog. After their tour begins Constantine takes the place of Kermit in order to pull off the greatest burglary in history. The gang doesn't notice the difference at first, and more so are left to do what ever they want without Kermit as the guiding light of the show. Kermit eagerly awaits his friends to realize the truth before it is too late.

The storyline in this is pretty much the same as any other Muppets movie: a dastardly deed that only The Muppets can put an end to. We don't go to these movies to be blown away by depth, we go to them for the laughs. This movie delivers on the laughs, but sadly not as well as the predecessor (which they admit to in song). A fair amount of the good jokes were seen in the previews, and the rest are classic Muppet moments. I do love The Muppets, I like how they break the fourth wall and how they work with A List celebrities in the background (instead of the foreground). The cameos in this are the parts that tickle my funny bone the most. Whenever I can see Ray Liotta and Danny Trejo in the background of a movie taking shots at themselves it is a great time. This movie seemed a little too reliant on star power for laughs though. There are some good jokes that have nothing to do with celebrities, but in the end it just isn't enough. It seems like the closest thing to selling out I can think of for The Muppets. One of the biggest surprises from this movie was how big a part Sam Eagle played, and how amazingly funny that part was. One of the biggest let downs from this movie was how annoyed I was at the character Walter (introduced in the lest movie). I don't know if it is the way he is starting to play the group Jiminy Cricket, or if it is just that I missed Jason Segle, but I sighed every time I had to sit through a scene with him.

The acting in this was as to be expected from any Muppets movie (much like the story line). How do you judge the same Kermit voice? How do you judge the same any Muppet voice? The only thing you can really judge when it comes to acting in any Muppet movie has to come down to the actually actors.  For "The Muppets: Treasure Island" it was Tim Curry, for the last movie it was Jason Segel. This movie gives us Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey, and Ty Burrell; who mostly did well in their own right. Tina Fey was very convincing as the obsessed warden, and looked like she had a great time with her role. Ty Burrell was hilarious as the European counterpart to Sam Eagle, taking quite a few shots at Europe and Interpol. Ricky Gervais was.... I don't really know how to describe him. He acted great but it seemed like his heart wasn't in it, which made him a very forgettable villain. As stated before the cameos were great (especially a scene with Usher), even if the movie relied to heavily on them they were well worth the price of admission.

I try to refrain from commenting on the music in any movie, but since this is a musical and since music is a major part of musicals I guess I have to (the only reason I try to refrain from this is because I have horrible taste in music- see my iPod for a reference).  I liked the music in this, I thought the tunes were catchy in a very Muppet kind of way. The beginning song was hilarious, the following songs either had some great depth or hilarity to them. We even get a song from a person mentioned about twenty times in the film (no spoilers). The music doesn't really surprise any one who is used to The Muppets (much like the story and acting), but it is always worth noting.

Finally, let's talk about the short (I wasn't expecting a short from this movie either). It seems that Monster's University lends itself better to a couple of minutes rather than an hour and a half (not that I didn't like the MU, it just wasn't the best). This short was pretty hilarious, I'd dare to say even more so than the movie that followed it. It was all about the unpopular monsters stealing a party by using doors to the human world. I'm not going to reveal any more but you won't be disappointed.

Final Verdict: Rent It Muppets fans won't be disappointed by this, and any one who is new to the series (all three of you) will find a good starting sequel. It doesn't break any new ground like the last movie, but it doesn't disappoint either. I always leave any Muppets movie more up beat than when I went into it, and this movie followed that past time.

Divergent

*WARNING* I have not read the book this movie is based off of. I am writing this review solely based off of my opinion on the movie itself. Realize that my views expressed here are not a reflection of anything other than the movie itself. If you like the book I am not saying anything positive or negative about that.

Didn't read the book and it was still bad enough

Divergent follows the character Beatrice "Tris" Prior, in a post apocalyptic society where the citizens are placed in to one of five groups based upon their predispositions. Abriegation; for the selfless (government), Amity; for the peaceful/kind (workers), Candor; for the honest (justice department), Dauntless for the brave (soldiers or police), and Erudite for the Intelligent (scientists). Each year the younger citizens must take an aptitude test in order to figure out where they belong, then must make their choice based on where they feel they are best suited (keeping the results of the test in mind). Beatrice goes to take the test and finds out that she does not belong anywhere, she has shown results from all five factions, a phenomena the people in charge call Divergent. She is told to hide this test result or she will "be in trouble" (later known as "she will be killed"), so she does and chooses to go into her favorite group, Dauntless. While there she meets a man named "Four" who guides her through the trials that Dauntless has to offer; but, as she stays in her faction it becomes apparent that she is in a far more grave predicament then she was led to believe.

I didn't mind the story line. As I watched the previews for this movie I thought that I would hate it because Summit has been on a real "teenagers in love, while more important stuff is going on" kick; but it turns out that I actually liked it. I just wish there was more to it. I feel this movie would have done better if it were split into two parts or a trilogy. I like the factions, I just wish there was more history to them. I like the post apocalyptic setting, I just wish I knew more about what led them to war in the first place. The story line has a nice premise, but falls a little short in the delivery. I am a guy that looks for detail in my story. Why are these people in this post apocalyptic setting? I expect the answer to be more than "war." Why does this faction hate the other? I expect the answer to be more than "they just don't like the leadership." I was waiting for some real rivalry between the factions. Faction X doesn't like faction Y because of Z. Some sort of deep rooted discourse, like Boston not liking New York (and vice versa). I didn't like that my hand was being held through a character driven story line I had no interest in knowing. I kind of felt like a little kid in a mall with his mother. I really wanted to go to Toys R' Us, but mom is making me go to Marshall's. "But Mr. Burgerrrr! I don't care about Beatrice having a hard time in Dauntless, I want to know more about the world that surrounds her character. I promise I will care more about her after I have gotten my fill."

The real problem here were the characters. We got treated to knowing a lot about Beatrice and Four, but next to nothing about her supporting characters. I want to know why her brother chose the faction he did. I want to know more about her parents, and why they made the choices they did. I want to know more about her friends (that also didn't start out in Dauntless). Why is Christina a part of Dauntless? Did she not like Candor? Are all people from Peter's district as much of a dick as he is? The lack of character building is really shown when people start dying (YES PEOPLE DIE IN THIS MOVIE, BUT I DIDN'T SAY WHO SO NO SPOILER WARNING!), you get the sense that you should be attached to these people, but you just aren't and it is awkward.

Another big problem I have was the acting. Unfortunately, we are saddled with two actors that don't seem to know that their faces can do anything besides "deep in thought glance" as the main leads. I liked Shailene Woodley in "The Descendants," and feel that she could be a great actor; but here she just looks like another face soon to be forgotten. The only experience I have with Theo James is "Underworld: Awakening" and now that he has followed up that bad movie with this poor performance I can't think of redemption for him. Every other actor in this performed well, but had such limited screen time/purpose that it didn't make a difference in the end.

This movie seems to have fallen into a classic mistake that looms over most movies based off of books. You have to read the book, for it to resonate with you on some level, but I feel that if I did read the book that I would probably be in some sort of nerd rage right now (and I really have enough venues that cause me nerd rage, Star Wars, Star Trek, PERCY JACKSON). As I stated, I have never read the book, but I still feel like I would have been treated to more detail had I read it. I guess the only positive thing I can say about this movie is that it made me want to read the book.

Final Verdict: Pirate it When thinking of going to see this movie think about "The Purge." You were probably as excited as I was for the premise (No rules for 12 hours), but when you got there it turned out to just be a poor excuse for a slasher film.

Need For Speed

Electronic Arts couldn't start their film career off right

Our story follows Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul), a street racer that never got the opportunity to go to the professional circuit and spends his days street racing or fixing cars. Following the death of his father he is given an opportunity to make a large amount of money when an old acquaintance shows back up, another racer that actually went professional by the name of Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper).  After the deal between them is complete Tobey manages to ruffle Dino's feathers and ends up being challenged to a race; unfortunately, a young and plucky friend of Tobey's is also dragged into the race and gets killed by Dino. Tobey is sent away as the suspected murderer and spends his time in jail awaiting his chance for revenge. Of course, (since this is a racing movie) the only option for revenge is to beat the real killer in a race.

Okay, so this movie is a ridiculous piece of garbage. Let's start my reasoning (how we usually do) with the story line. The story line is probably the biggest component that drives this movie down a dark path (racing pun). I don't think the writers actually get how police work is supposed to go. There are a lot of plot holes in the logic that these police officers were presenting. I won't spoil anything for you (in case you are some sort of sadist and feel the need to see this movie in theaters), but let's just say there will be a lot of moments where you are asking yourself "seriously, what the hell?" I didn't like how this guy was supposed to have spent two years in jail for murder (that's right ladies and gentleman, two years in jail for killing someone), and looks EXACTLY the way he did before he went in. No beard growth or cutting, no extra muscles, no long or shaved hair. Just comes out of jail saying "man, what a long sentence!" I also have a problem with something that was stated in the preview "in my world we always go back." Meaning that if someone crashes, you always go back for them. Not pointing out the obvious lack of logic there, but in the movie there are tons of racers that crash. No one stops for them, except when Tobey wants to punch one of them while saving his life. There are dozens of things that go wrong in this movie; the comedic relief are horrible at their jobs, the women are set pieces and are also proven as inferior to the men/real racers behind the wheel (sometimes embarrassingly so). The only positive thing I can even muster to say about this is that I am so glad I wasn't beaten over the head with little cars suped up with NOS. When my only positive point is your racing movie is not being like "The Fast and The Furious" we have a problem. There are also a couple of seeming story arcs that just don't lead anywhere. There are two love interests in the story, but he goes off with one of them and completely does away with the other. This doesn't make since when the love interest he writes off was the first one we were introduced to and led to believe as the main love interest of the film. There was also this moment where they tell the audience that there is problem with the car, which doesn't lead anywhere. I was constantly asking myself, "okay, so when are they going to fix the problem with the car?" (It was very distracting)

Let's talk about the dialogue here. It is like the writers threw a bunch of words into the air and started forming sentences that might make sense to your resident crazy hobo. Most of these lines are said by Micheal Keaton, but there are still some eyebrow raising lines said by the rest of the support cast. It will leave you confused and frustrated trying to find the code breaker to understand what some of these people are saying. When you do figure out what they are saying, you will feel ashamed for having spent time watching this movie and effort trying to understand it. The only way these lines would work is if this movie was in the guise of a racing themed "spoof" (admittedly it does feel like a spoof sometimes, but I don't think that is what the writers were going for). Of course, there was also a "Top Gun" reference, with a title like "Need for Speed."

I don't understand how most of these actors were actually paid for their performances. It is like the people paying them were just giving them money to ride on the back of Aaron Paul. No, I am not just saying Aaron Paul did well in this because of "Breaking Bad," I am just saying he legitimately put forth a good performance. If anyone cared enough about this movie or Aaron Paul to wonder if his talent would carry over, be assured that it does. That does not excuse the rest of this cast for being so blatantly bad at what they are doing. The only other thing that might save some of the performances in this is Micheal Keaton looking like he is having an absolutely blast with his role. It is like he knows the words coming out of his mouth mean next to nothing, but runs with it, and it is hilarious.

There is one positive I can point out in this movie, it has the best audio of any racing movie I have seen to date. I am confidant that any actual car enthusiasts will love hearing these impressive machines (which are most likely their dream cars) come to life. I can at least speculate that they would, since I know very little about cars; but, the only time I was actually interested in the movie is when I heard the sounds of the engine.

Final Verdict: Don't do it As good as the audio was, and as good as Aaron Paul was, I cannot justify sending anyway to watch this. Just forget this movie existed. It isn't "so bad it was good," and my view on Aaron Paul might have been clouded by everyone else in the movie being so much worse that he looked better in comparison. Like a mildly attractive person surrounding themselves with less attractive people.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman

A new way to teach kids about history... sort of

Our story follows Mr. Peabody (Ty Burrell), who is the most talented anything (or dog) in the known world. He has accomplished much in his time, then decides that his final challenge is to raise a child named Sherman (Max Charles). This decision is the spark of some conflict since he is a dog and the boy is human. When he adopts Sherman as his own it sparks Mr. Peabody's greatest invention "The Wayback," a time machine he uses to teach Sherman about history. We enter the movie on Sherman's first day at school, all seems to be going well until he makes an enemy out of his fellow classmate Penny (Ariel Winter), by out smarting her in the classroom. She hazes him for being a dog (since his father is a dog) until Sherman breaks and bites her. This puts Mr. Peabody in an awkward position, he is now in trouble of losing Sherman unless he can convince child services that he is an amazing father. He hosts a party (of sorts) for Penny's parents, and the woman from child services, forcing Sherman to confront Penny again. When Sherman is forced to reveal how he knows so much about the subject he outsmarted Penny on he shows her The Wayback, and accidentally leaves her in ancient Egypt. Mr. Peabody and Sherman run to her rescue, facing trials and tribulations on the return journey.

Have you seen a movie about time travel before? This should not come as a surprise. No, this movie is not the most original concept in the world. The plot is old and tired, the climax is repetitive of every other movie about time travel (accept for Bill and Ted I guess, no real problem with time travel there). It is your classic story of "adoption problems" and "space time continuum in danger of collapsing." We have seen it before, and it shouldn't impress anyone.

Some of the characters were a little awkward for me (like Odysseus being made to look like an idiot, in comparison to the other Greeks), most were pretty entertaining. There is a scene where historical figures are playing with modern day inventions, which was cool even if Bill and Ted beat them to it. Leonardo DaVinci's character along with Agamemnon were funny interpretations, and Penny's parents were cute in a satirical sort of way.

The jokes in this movie were pretty great. Some of them are very high brow, engaging different members of the audience all around. There are funny "people falling out of a hole in a statue, making it look like the statue is pooping" for the kids (or me because pooping and farts are timeless humor). There are Greek jokes, French Revolution jokes, and presidential jokes for the history buffs or parents in the crowd. I did find myself laughing uncontrollably to two of the more cleverly crafted jokes, and that is enough for me to call this movie funny. The rest of the jokes made me smile, or chuckle, so that is enough for me to call this movie good at least.

The voices in this were pretty great. I didn't really expect Ty Burrell to be able to pull off a good Mr. Peabody (I could shorten it to Peabody, but this situation is to formal), but he surprised me by making it a great fit. I just didn't know if I could see the jerk from the "Dawn of the Dead" reboot as a charming, egghead. The child voice actors did well, but nothing is really asked from children who do voice work. Just read the script and apply the right amount of emotion. I can at least say that they seemed to put forth some major effort in sounding emotional, so there is that. Stephen Colbert, Stanley Tucci, Patrick Warburton, and Mel Brooks were all fantastic in the small roles that they played.

The last thing I can really say about this movie (besides mentioning the animation, which these days should only be brought up if it is a negative) is the short that proceeded it. It was harmless, but lacked any real defining characteristic. Unfortunately, it felt like a moment where the studio said "hey, this is an animated movie, we need a quick short to put in front of it." All I can think is that this is not the first time a short from Dreamworks fell flat, which is bad since Disney seems to have it mastered. Why did I bring this up? Because the short in front of these movies is almost talked about as much as the movies themselves.

Final Verdict: Rent it This movie won't exactly be turning anyone's head like the other animated movie to come out this year ("The Lego Movie"). If you need a cute animated film to hold the kids' attention for awhile (that you can also laugh at) I suggest this.

300: Rise of an Empire

A more than worthy successor 

In case you were deaf, dumb and blind in 2006 this movie is a sequel to the box office smash "300;" however, I don't really know if I can call it an actual "sequel" since most of the sequences take place during the events of the original movie. This movie follows the war hero Themistokles, and his small band of soldiers that chose to meet the Persians at sea as opposed to land. He is met by thousands of Persian war ships to his dozen of smaller Grecian ships, with the Persian Navy led by  mastermind Artemisia. She employs all of her cunning and wit to be met by Themisokles foiling her attempts at a swift victory. Who will win? The land of the free, or the invading force?

The story line in this was surprisingly a real winner. I don't think it was a surprise to anyone making this movie that no one out there really cared to have a "300" sequel, but somehow they made the movie just interesting enough to earn praise. I wouldn't say I liked it more than the original, but it is definitely on par. In this movie we didn't seem to have a bunch superhero's running around, instead we got "salt-of-the earth" types that barely knew their way around a sword. It gave the characters a more humanizing and down-to-earth feel. Unfortunately the people in charge of this movie didn't make it so you could feel too sympathetic for anyone that wasn't the main protagonist or antagonist. There are some deaths in the movie that seemed to take on the life of the last movie, but I just didn't feel as bound to them as I did in the original. Not saying that this was a bad story line of course, just not a perfect delivery. I liked that they gave the Persians more of a reason to hate the Greeks besides, "we want to rule them" this go around. This movie gives a second layer on top of the need for power, and that is vengeance (I love a good revenge story line among all of these old war movies). It actually does a good job at revealing that not every side is completely evil or good. That there are always two sides to a war and no one is perfect. A fact that the original movie didn't seem too inclined to build upon (in the original Sparta = good, Persia = bad. Period.). Artemisia was one of the best examples of this, showing us a strong, cut throat, tragic woman, and her rise to power. I also like the slight implication that this movie was more about tactics, than brute force. Since this movie was about Athens it makes more sense.

The acting in this was just as it was the last go around, great. All of the actors performed tremendously, and did well with their calls to battle, or heart felt speeches. I have to give a special mention to the real star of this show, Eva Green. She absolutely stole every scene she was in. Giving us a dark, vengeful, powerful warrior woman and never missing a beat. She was cold and unforgiving, as well as poised and ruthless, bringing her character to life in a way I fail to see how anyone else could.

The pacing is the only negative criticism I can throw at this movie, in a sense it all just felt too sped up. Like they were racing to cover everything, and get to the climax ending (which was great). When they did this, the side characters fell to the way side. I didn't feel the sense of loss when men feel in battle (as stated before), I didn't feel the significance of a father's blessing, and I didn't feel a real connection between the main characters with their lesser counterparts. Yes, Artemisia and Themisokles were deep, thought provoking characters, but everyone else just felt copy and pasted from the original. I feel like if we had an extra twenty minutes of getting to know them, it would have proved different.

The graphics in this were a star in the show by themselves (as in the original). If you came to the movie expecting a lot of slow motion, gory sequences than you won't be surprised (whether that is good or bad for you). The treacherous hunchback was more finely detailed, the fire on the ships felt alive, and the Immortals gained a new feeling of menace. It made the Immortals actually seem unstoppable, which fits since they were up against a (seemingly) inferior group of warriors. The place where this is best shown is in the climax scene, where the CGI just went nuts and made everything seem beautiful.

I was asked (before I saw this) if I think this movie can stand alone. If I think you could see this movie without first seeing the original. What I am about to say in no way reflects my judgement on the movie, it is just a helpful hint to those of you who are planning to see it. Yes, but I would not recommend it. You can see anything without seeing the original first (I think the amount of people that saw "The Dark Knight" before "Batman Begins" proved that, unfortunately). They recap a lot of the original movie for you, but without actually seeing the first movie you will not understand the significance of such phrases as "Leonidas and his 300 are at the hot gates." Do what you want of course (as this movie dictates, you have the freedom to) but just realize you are depriving yourself of everything this movie has to offer. 

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters This movie does well against its predecessor, and earns a seldom seen title "good sequel." Noam Murrow did a real credit to Zack Snyder when she directed this, and you will not be disappointed.

 

Non-Stop

The toss up between Jesus, and another Liam Neeson action movie

We start the movie by meeting our main character, Bill Marks (Liam Neeson). It is apparent (in the first five minutes) that Bill is an alcoholic due to some sort of tragedy in his life. What takes the director a little longer to divulge is that he is also a U.S. Air Marshal (we all know this from the trailer, but they felt the need to wait for the reveal until 15 to 20 minutes in). It seems like business as usual for the marshal until he gets a text message from an unknown number. After a couple of exchanges we figure out that the person texting him is now threatening that if certain demands are not met, they will kill a passenger every twenty minutes. Bill springs into action to save the flight and passengers before it is too late.

The story line in this was descent in some place, but standard in others. We have all seen some aspect of this movie somewhere before, from the characters to the terrorist's plans. I didn't really expect a whole lot of originality from the plot going in, and I was disappointed to figure out that this movie couldn't shake that belief. There are just so many things that this movie could have done better, like not revealing who the terrorists actually were. They could have also flushed the characters out a little more instead of everyone being so stereotypical. Yes, we know not all Muslims are terrorists. Yes, we know not all black people are automatically guilty. Yes, losing a person you care about would probably drive a man into a downward spiral. Yes, we know that any public servant from New York probably has some mixed feelings about planes and hijacking. All of these characters are so unbelievably boring that I really just didn't care who the terrorists were, because I figured that their reasons for doing this would be as generic as everything else in the movie. I will give the writers a small praise for making the big reveal at the end hard to call. I know if anyone else reading this actually saw the movie that they might have been able to call who the culprits were, but it did generally surprise me. It was also refreshing to see that Liam Neeson's character in this had many more faults than his character in other action movies (let's say "Taken," not that the movie was bad). He seemed less like a superhero, and more like an everyday guy that knew a few cool kung fu moves. The "Flight 93" sequence was also okay, if maybe a little bland and easy to see coming.

The acting in this was pretty standard all around, not in a bad way but in a "shrugging" way. Liam Neeson is par for the course, talking in a gravely voice, being an amazing actor. Julianne Moore plays the same old, "attractive older woman" model, this time with more of a tragedy to her character. She is great of course, but she has a lot of experience playing this character so I know she perfected it. If there were any real stands out here I would have to give it to Nate Parker and Corey Stoll. Both of these men were a bit out of the comfort zone we are used to from them, but handled themselves brilliantly.

As with any Liam Neeson action movie, the choreography was great. Plenty of bone breaking, eye popping, fist fights, so anyone desperately in need for some good fist fights will be perfectly happy here. Liam Neeson may play the bad ass old man in one too many films, but since all of his movies like to paint him as "the bad ass fist fighter," they do a great job of making me want to steer clear of him in a dark alley.

Final Verdict: Rent It I wish I could have gone into more detail on this one, but it really is so bland that I feel like I'd be quoting about five other critics on at least a dozen other movies. We've seen this before sums it up quite nicely, but it was a little better than okay. With the ending actually having an air of surprise, and Liam Neeson's character being a little more flushed out I'd say this would be worth a couple of dollars.