"Life Itself" review

It's quite fitting that someone would make a movie about Roger Ebert. After all, the beloved critic loved movies so much that "Roger Ebert loved movies" is the epitaph on his website. It's even more fitting that it would be made by Steve James, director of the 1994 documentary Hoop Dreams, which Ebert adored and championed endlessly. It's just a shame, though, that it would not be produced until after his death, although he did live just long enough to participate in its production.

The film opens in - of course - Chicago, Ebert's beloved home, where we see the city in full memoriam mode for the critic, and meet a number of people we'll be conversing with over the course of the film- friends of Ebert, associates, people familiar with him. These include Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog, his longtime close friends and among his most admired filmmakers. The credits roll over a series of photos of Roger from his childhood through his many years as a critic, with the title card being paired, significantly, with a photo he took himself in 2006, just before having surgery for his thyroid cancer that, he knew, would change his face significantly.

Then we finally meet the man himself in person, sometime around late 2012 or early 2013, mere months before his death. He is, as he once admitted himself, not a pretty sight. His lower jaw is completely gone, his bottom row of teeth completely missing, leaving nothing but loose flap of skin that he casually bounces up and down whenever he types. The first thing we see him doing is suffering through a cleansing of a hole in his throat, through which he is fed. His discomfort is painfully obvious. )Then we remember that he went through this once every day, at least.) He is completely incapable of speech, having to use a text-to-speech program on his laptop to communicate, and as the film later flashes back to 2009, or 2007, it is clear that he is deteriorating. And yet, there is still joy on his face. He seems to have a permanent smile, as comedian Doug Walker once put it; not by physical limitation - over the course of the film, we see that he can also muster a neutral or negative expression - but by choice. Whereas before, he often appeared reserved when on camera, remaining something of a stone-face while his voice expressed all of his emotion, now he always seems to be grinning, even in those painful moments of throat-cleansing; whenever anyone asks him, "are you alright?", his answer is always another smile paired with (what else) a great big thumbs-up. Even as he was dying, his spirit was alive.

After the introduction, we flash back to the early years of Ebert's life, mostly glossing over his childhood and skipping to the juicy beginnings of his journalism career, starting as editor of his local college's paper before moving on to the Chicago Sun-Times and having the job of movie critic more or less fall into his lap. We see that he quickly became a major voice for the new, young generation of critics by daring to give Bonnie & Clyde a good review. There's a very hefty section of the film devoted to, of course, Siskel & Ebert, the show that solidified his career, with Gene Siskel's wife Marlene acting as the mouthpiece for Gene's point of view. I found the editing very fascinating in this portion. In a documentary, the editing generally tries to avoid bringing attention to itself, so as to seem more natural and real, but in Life Itself I found myself struck by several ingenious moments of cutting. When we learn that Siskel and Ebert were on Johnny Carson 3 times over, this isn't told through words; instead, we see Carson introduce them, and watch them walk onstage - and then we see Carson introduce them, and watch them walk onstage - and then we see Carson introduce them, and watch them walk onstage. It's a very unique and evocative way to explain it, much more interesting than a flat voiceover, and everyone can understand what the clip means.

One of the few subjects in the film that we don't see enough of is, ironically, the subject we see more than any other aside from Roger: his wife, Chaz. She is a constant presence in his life during the footage from 2013, and the love that they have for one another is clearly deep and unbreakable, but not enough attention is paid to the woman herself. Tantalizing bites of her history are dangled in front of us - she briefly mentions having marched with Martin Luther King, and confesses that she met Roger at an AA meeting (the first time, so she says, that she has ever publicly admitted to being an alcoholic) - but they are forgotten about as soon as they are brought up. Little is even suggested as to what initially attracted her to him (or him to her), or what made them decide to spend their lives together. Their early courtship (for lack of a better term), which is actually a very sweet story, is never brought up. Much attention is paid to Siskel's joy that his friend was getting married ("now he'll have to pay mortgages- he'll never leave the show!"), but Chaz's discussion of the big day is limited to remarking on her family's surprise that she'd marry a white man. This is Roger's film, not hers, of course, but a person's spouse says a lot about them, and Life Itself does not say enough about his.

A scene late in the film, where Roger has finally arrived back home after several months of physical therapy, is impressive in its honesty. Chaz, clearly quite tired, expects that he will walk up the stairs to the front door, but Roger disagrees. He makes an erratic "writing" motion, trying to ask for some paper and a pen, and slams his fist in anger when he's denied it. Chaz raises her voice, he moves about wildly, desperate to express himself, and when he's finally given the paper he writes frantically and angrily. He wants to be moved up the stairs in his wheelchair. Chaz refuses, adamant that he can do it himself, as he'd spent several months in physical therapy preparing for. If only he could talk, it's very easy to see that Roger would be screaming back at her. It's always commendable to see this sort of honesty in a biography, even - hell, especially - in the most fawning and approving of memorials, because it shows a person as all people are: flawed. Other flaws of Ebert's are explored throughout the film, and rather than tarnish his legacy, they enhance it; they show us that, great though he was, he made screw-ups as all of us do, and importantly, that his good qualities ultimately outweighed his bad. It's shown that, in his younger years, he was something of a swinger; when asked why he was so fond of the schlocky films of Russ Meyer, so fond that he would write the only screenplays of his career with Meyer, the answer from his friends is a unanimous, flat "boobs", and his drunken escapades (which ultimately led to a membership in Alcoholics Anonymous, where, as mentioned before, he met Chaz) were apparently a sight to behold. Without this honesty, James would certainly be accused of sugarcoating Ebert's life story. With this honesty, he's enhanced it.

But the deepest honesty, the most beautiful truth, is the final scene, when Roger has passed and we've moved on to the mourning. The nationwide memorial is poignant by itself, but the most wonderful moments are those that seem like something right out of a movie, payoffs of inadvertent foreshadowing that seem to confirm Ebert's claim, in the opening line of his memoir, that he "was born inside the movie of [his] life". An old friend is shown carrying a homemade umbrella covered in decorations of remembrance, and underneath, a pair of plastic Russ Meyer-esque 'boobs'. All the people we've seen interviewed are there at his funeral, shown in quickie close-up shots just like any movie funeral. At the close of his "Celebration of Life" held at the Chicago Theater, the audience stands and gives a salute of thumbs, just like the thumbs he'd used to say that he was okay. He is okay.

It was often said, in Ebert's final years after his surgery, that although he had lost his speech, he had not lost his voice. Now he has lost his life- but his voice still remains. Life Itself is a wonderful tribute to that voice, and the amazing man it belonged to.

"How to Train Your Dragon 2" review

2010's How to Train Your Dragon was a true revelation for DreamWorks Animation, proving - as did 2008's Kung Fu Panda - that the studio still had it in them to create sweeping, beautifully-animated epics like their sophomore effort The Prince of Egypt (1998), and that those epic qualities could be successfully combined with the snarky, postmodern wit that they had become known for in the years since. Now, the sequel has arrived, and although it remains visually stunning, emotionally resonant, and very fun, it stumbles in the storytelling in a way that the original did not.

On the island of Berk, dragons and vikings reign supreme. Once bitter rivals, they have since learned to live and work together, thanks to the efforts of the village chief's son, Hiccup (as detailed in the first movie). Hiccup, voiced by Jay Baruchel, is now five years older and five times handsomer, and has been spending much of his time alone with his dragon Toothless and/or his girlfriend Astrid (America Ferrera), avoiding responsibility. His dad, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler), has chosen him to become the next chief of Berk, but he doesn't want all of the duties that come with the job. On one of his many excursions, Hiccup stumbles upon something he never expected: there are other humans in his world that have trained dragons. Groups of dragon trappers, like tough guy Eret (Kit Harrington), and led by the evil Drago Bludvist (Djimon Hounsou), a tyrant obsessed with controlling dragons and ruling over any humans that may stand in his way, who plans to take over Berk. Standing in the middle of the conflict is a mysterious woman dressed in strange clothes, who seems to have a special bond with all dragons, and who may have a connection to Hiccup's past.

The most beloved and memorable moments of the original How to Train Your Dragon were the stunning flying scenes, where beautiful dragons soared through the skies to incredible, unforgettable musical pieces composed by the brilliant John Powell (whose work was nominated for, but criminally did not win, an Oscar). You'll not be wanting for such flying scenes in the sequel. There are probably four times as many incredibly unique and creative dragons to behold, and the exotic locales they swoop over range from orange Autumn forests to cold, white arctic caves, all rendered in what is quite possibly the most astounding detail ever seen in an animated film. Every dragon's scale, every stitch of clothing, every strand of hair, every pore of skin, and every blade of grass can be seen clear as day. Hiccup turns his head, and you can see the muscles in his neck moving. Toothless's pupils dilate realistically. The vikings are visibly weighed down by the weapons and armor that they carry. The very air in the film's world seems infused with something magical. Slightly less successful is Powell's music; though still beautiful to listen to, much of the score is primarily re-arrangements of pieces from the first film, so it never comes close to the unexpected heights we experienced there.

But, although the flying was the crowd pleaser, the other ingredient of Dragons 1 that made it so special was what happened between the flights: the conversations, the scenes of character development and backstory, where all of DreamWorks' trademark sarcasm was put. There was much of that in the first, and it made the flying scenes all the more special, but the reverse is true for the second, and that's not a good thing. Crafting action scenes is an art, and the most important part of doing it is ensuring that the pace is just right- making sure it doesn't run too long, and making sure that, once it's over, the viewer has time to calm down after all the thrills. Dragons 2 forgets this important point, and worse, it makes that mistake at the very beginning. The first scene, a very exciting demonstration of Berk's new sport of Dragon Racing, is a great opener, with just the right amount of dragon action to get the viewer warmed up, and lasting a respectable five minutes... only to be followed by another action scene. This scene, which you might be familiar with (it was used as the film's teaser trailer), is also very good, very exciting, full of surprises, and with a lovely accompanying musical piece, but when it comes immediately after another one, one which ended satisfyingly, it feels wrong. The viewer's mind expects something calmer, something to cool them down, and we don't want to process another big epic moment. That's not the only time this happens, either. Time and time again, director Dean DeBlois cuts between one sweeping dragon flight straight into another, with precious little time for characters actually emoting. Powell's score feels like it's pulling overtime, forced to throw in so many bombastic, joyous tunes in that it nearly becomes unwelcome. There's no denying that the animation and visuals in these scenes are uniformly spectacular, but after so many of them in a row, they're akin to viewing Picasso paintings while riding a speeding bus: yes, it's beautiful, but couldn't we please slow down so I can take it all in?

How to Train Your Dragon 2's other big flaw is a common one for sequels (animated sequels in particular): there are far too many characters with not enough for them to do. It makes the understandable assumption that viewers will want to see all of the characters from the first film return, and return they do: Gobber (Stoick's close friend and Hiccup's former master blacksmith, voiced by Craig Ferguson), Fishlegs (the nerdy, chubby kid voiced by Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Snotlout (a boorish blowhard, voiced by Jonah Hill), Tuffnut, and Ruffnut (twin siblings who constantly bicker and ride a two-headed dragon, voiced by TJ Miller and Kristen Wiig) are all back, and proceed to have no point. Gobber is constantly at Stoick's side, but he doesn't seem to have any real reason to be there. Stoick does all of the action on his own, and Gobber only butts in to make rather unfunny comments which frequently ruining emotional moments. Worse still is the treatment of the young dragon riders. In the first film, they all had unique traits and were very likable, but a lack of screen time or story purpose has whittled them away to nearly nothing, with them having little remaining traits beyond "comic relief times four". A 'love' triangle between Ruffnut, Snotlout, and Fishlegs is mishandled; although it's not meant to be serious (Ruffnut does not return either's affections at all!), it's also completely inconsequential. With Astrid doing all of the heavy lifting in the main story, this silly little subplot is all these three have in the story, yet it only merits a few scattered, throwaway gags and isn't even resolved at the end.

The major new characters are also, unfortunately, underdeveloped. Lead villain Drago doesn't have a lot to him beyond being a berserker warmonger, although his parallels with Hiccup are interesting (he, too, has lost a limb, had a rough childhood of fending off constant attacks, and is a master at dragon training) and he is, at least, plenty intimidating. The same can't be said about Eret, his underling who (spoiler!) defects to the side of Berk. Eret has that classic DreamWorks charm about him, what with his magnificent eyebrows and frequent witty quipping, but his only real function is to give out exposition and help the leads get from Point A to Point B. He decides to stick around at the film's end, though, so perhaps we'll get a deeper understanding of him in the third film. Hopefully we can expect the same for Valka (Cate Blanchett), the aforementioned mysterious dragon-riding woman (and - spoiler!! - Hiccup's mother), who, again, doesn't have much plot purpose beyond exposition and rescues. Although she is the focal point of the most riveting and gorgeous of the flying scenes, and the source of the most emotionally deep and beautiful moments in the film (her reuniting with Stoick after 20 years is wonderful), she slowly fizzles out when the climax appears, suddenly needing rescue several times over after previously seeming to be the most capable character in the entire film, and by the end she's nothing more than an Inspiring Words Dispenser for Hiccup. Since Stoick - spoiler!!! - dies in Dragons 2 (a matter which, besides a decent Viking-burial-at-sea scene, has all weight dropped from it afterwards, without even a "sorry your dad died" from Astrid), Dragons 3 should, again, hopefully give us more of Valka, who is frankly too damn interesting to be relegated to the status of "the Gandalf".

Upon my first viewing of How to Train Your Dragon 2 on Friday, June 13, I found it extremely disappointing, and felt completely crushed for the rest of the weekend. When I saw it again on the 17th, I actually enjoyed it much more, to the point that it changed the tone of this review considerably. Knowing the story problems ahead of time, I was able to focus more on the beautiful scenery, which remains stellar. I guess I was just in a strange sort of mood on my first go-around, but regardless of the viewer's emotional state, Dragons 2 has a number of flaws and missed opportunities that hinder its many positive qualities. The visuals and the music are as spectacular as one could ever dream of, but where the original was nearly perfect, in my viewings of the sequel I found myself mentally rewriting it.

"Godzilla" review

The King of the Monsters, Godzilla, is celebrating his 60th birthday this year, and seeing how he's been absent from the screen for a decade (his last movie was 2004's Godzilla: Final Wars, itself an anniversary celebration), it's about time he's made a return to theaters. His new film is crafted by the American studio Legendary and the British director Gareth Edwards rather than his native Toho, but thankfully, it's turned out a hell of a lot better than the last time foreigners got ahold of Japan's beloved beast.

In 1954, a secret nuclear test in the Pacific goes horribly, unimaginably awry: it inadvertently awakens a 1,000-year-old monster named Godzilla. An organization called MONARCH is hastily formed and spends the better part of 45 years trying to kill

Fast-forward to 1999. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) has been called to investigate a mine in the Philippines, where an unprecedented discovery has been made inside: An impossibly huge skeleton, buried underground, alongside two giant eggs. One of the eggs is intact- but one of them has hatched. As Serizawa exits the mine, he suddenly notices a huge trail leading from the egg and emptying out into the ocean. Meanwhile, Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) and his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche), two researchers at the Janjira nuclear power plant, are on duty the day that a tremendous earthquake suddenly strikes without warning. The earthquake destroys the plant, killing Sandra and sending Janjira into ruin, leading it to be quarantined.

Fifteen years later, Joe's son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is now an adult, a Navy officer living in San Francisco with his wife Elle and son Sam, but Joe is still living in Japan, searching desperately for an answer to the Janjira incident- which he is convinced was not an earthquake. After his latest attempt to break into the fenced-off plant gets him thrown in jail, Ford travels to Tokyo to bail him out, and to try and convince him to come home- but instead, his father ropes him into another break-in attempt, where they are once again caught and taken to a secret location inside the plant. There, they meet Serizawa, who has been working with MONARCH to study a mysterious chrysalis that has appeared in Janjira's ruins. Practically the moment they arrive, the chrysalis hatches, revealing a monster known as MUTO (Massive Unindentified Terrestrial Organism). The MUTO destroys the facility and flies off in the direction of San Francisco, where it will meet its mate (which has broken out of a facility in Nevada) and reproduce, populating the world with hundreds of gigantic beasts that will surely crush all of civilization. The US Navy plans to destroy San Francisco with a nuclear bomb, killing millions but hopefully killing the beasts along with them, but Serizawa says the plan is doomed. He believes that only one thing can save the Earth: Godzilla.

In light of the much-loathed 1998 film, which had absolutely nothing in common with Godzilla beyond having a large lizard monster that attacks a city, it seems as though the team at Legendary went through some kind of checklist of everything a real Godzilla movie has to have, and followed it to the letter- for better, and for worse. Godzilla has nearly every time-honored tradition for the series: a multinational scale, political tensions, family conflict, all-knowing scientists clashing with the bullheaded military, a humanity that's helpless and defenseless at the feet of the kaiju, and that awesome moment when our heroes realize that the world's only hope rests on the King. Classic Godzilla moments make their return: the MUTOs lay siege to San Fran's Chinatown just so we can get the requisite pagoda-smashing shot, Godzilla's iconic atomic breath returns (the scene where he uses it is probably the best part of the whole movie), and once Godzilla [spoiler!] emerges victorious, he triumphantly dives back into his home in the sea, to lie in wait until he's needed again. Just about the only thing that's missing is Akira Ifukube's iconic theme music, but the new score by Alexandre Desplat is so stirring, intense, and unsettling - and so unlike the bombastic feel of the classic score - that it's hardly missed.

Unfortunately, in holding onto all of the good, Legendary has also inadvertently clung onto the bad. Godzilla keeps with the series' common flaws of having too many characters, hokey dialogue, poorly-done drama, subplots that go nowhere, scenes that drag on, and pretentious fauxlosophical talk.. The subplot with Ford's family, for one, rings entirely hollow. He's only seen together with them for about two minutes before he's called to bail Joe out, and following this, their further appearances are sporadic, add nothing to the plot, and seem to be put in just to make sure we don't forget they exist. Neither Elle nor Sam are ever put in any real danger - even when Godzilla and the MUTOs descend upon San Fran, they're always far away and out of trouble - and it's especially aggravating how the film constantly feels the need to interrupt an awesome monster fight to show us their bland reactions to it. I've heard some other critics lodge similar complaints of blandness against Ford, but personally, I like him well enough- he's a good enough example of your standard "all-American soldier", and he performs enough cool and heroic acts to stay in our good graces. It's true, however, that he's not the most interesting character in the film, and he indeed hogs the spotlight from Ken Watanabe's much cooler Dr. Serizawa. Serizawa is introduced at the film's very beginning, before Ford even makes his first appearance, as someone with a mysterious personal interest in Godzilla (which certainly fits a character with that name: "Ishiro"= Ishiro Honda, Godzilla's creator, and "Serizawa" = Daisuke Serizawa, hero of the original 1954 movie), and he's later established to be the son of a Hiroshima victim, but none of his depths are ever explored. We continue to see his obsession with Godzilla - whenever Big G shows up, he's more interested in catching a glimpse of his than in saving himself, and he's always braying about how only Godzilla can take down the MUTOs - but it's never explained why he's so fixated. Certainly, his boring partner Dr. Graham (Sally Hawkins) doesn't seem to find him quite so compelling.

I'm not even getting into all of the other characters that are underused, but frankly, I think I've said enough. Because, like all the other Godzilla movies, compelling character drama is not what you came here to see, is it? No. I know what you want to know. You want to know: does Godzilla look cool?

Well, he does, friends. Oh my god, does he look freaking cool.

The film takes the Jaws route of not showing Big G until the timing is just right. (Sure, we've already seen his face on all of the posters and trailers, not to mention the last 28 movies, but that's another matter.) The buildup is amazing: for the first 45 minutes or so, only his presence is felt, as we witness the destruction he brings, but never do we see him (in contrast with the MUTOs, who we see clearly and often). Then, as Serizawa is brought in to brief Ford on the monster, we finally learn his name and history, and watch his giant spines break through the waters off the coast of Honolulu. Cut to Honolulu on land, where the male MUTO has a helpless airport under his power, smashing planes left and right and creating a huge fireball- but then the flames clear, and an enormous foot, dwarfing the entire airport, lands on the ground. A slow panning shot follows up his body until we finally see his face, and at long last, he lets out that immortal roar. (I have to admit, this part got me so excited that I actually roared right along with him in the theater.)

Now, the big monster fights we want to see unfortunately take a long while to get going (Godzilla's awesome reveal is immediately followed by - ugh - a scene of Elle and Sam watching the fight on TV), but once they do, they're astonishing. The MUTOs are merely decent monsters - scary enough, but rather generic, and it'd have been nice to see some familiar foes like Rodan or Anguirus instead - but their fight with Godzilla leaves all sins forgiven, for it is the stuff of dreams. There's more destruction, punching, explosions, decimation, and devastation in this one final battle scene than there's been in several past Goji movies, combined. Perhaps it goes without saying, since this film has the limitless possibilities of CGI at its disposal while previous films had to make do with guys in big suits, but it's easily the best giant monster fight of all time.

At the end of the day, the new Godzilla is essentially the ultimate Godzilla flick- the paper-thin characters, lopsided human-to-monster ratio, and goofy script all still remain, but when it comes to big, boisterous, battling behemoths, it's unparalleled. If you want to see cities get wrecked by huge monsters fighting each other - and who doesn't? - no movie's ever done it better than this.

"The Lego Movie" review

This movie should not exist.

I mean, I'm glad it exists. The world is a better place because it exists. This is a good movie - a great movie - an awesome movie - but it's simply impossible to believe that it really does exist. I'm reminded of the time when I saw the trailer for Scott Pilgrim, and my dad turned to me and said: "Luke, that movie got made."

Because, yeah, holy crap, this movie got made. A movie with a title that basically sells the premise (spoiler: it's a movie about Lego), and from there, it's easy to be cynical. This is going to be a 90-minute commercial. Walk into a scene, pitch the product, walk out, repeat. What is this, the 80s? Are we back to the Advertainment Age of animation? How can you make a movie with mere Legos? There's no plot there! This is just further proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas. And there's no reason to not think that way.

But don't. Cast aside all preconceptions, because this movie transcends them. "How can you make a movie with mere Legos?" is a ridiculous question. These are Legos we're talking about, remember? You can make everything out of Legos.

And, yeah, that's the most immediately visible part of the movie. Basically everything in its world is made out of Legos: all of the buildings, all of the animals, all of the terrain, and all of the people. And more distinctly, everything moves like it's made of Legos: Fire is made up of those little translucent flame pieces that came in the Harry Potter sets; water "ripples" by pieces appearing and disappearing on top of each other;  the minifigure people are restricted by their construction, having stiff, rigid arms and legs, and immobile claws for hands. Remember how their torsos can extend all the way back and forward in 90 degree angles, like they're doing extreme aerobics? Yeah, that happens in this movie. Despite being made with impressively high-tech visual technology (and I do mean impressive- let me tell you, these things look unmistakably like real Legos, complete with all the scratches and imperfections), everything comes together to have the feel of a home-made "brickfilm"- something a little kid might make on their coffee table, with nothing but Lego pieces, an imagination, and a dinky old camera. As someone who, at the age of five, made an actual short film called "The Lego Movie" on his own coffee table, with nothing but Lego pieces and imagination and a dinky old camera, this movie sucked me in immediately. And after that, the story under the bricks sucked me in even more.

The crux of it is that Emmet (Chris Pratt) is an exceptionally uninteresting Lego construction worker living in a Lego world ruled by Lord/President Business (Will Ferrell), where anything and everything is controlled by rigid instructions, and anyone who goes against the instructions get "put to sleep". The population is controlled by inane entertainment like the dimwitted sitcom Where Are My Pants? (you can guess the plot) or the incredibly catchy song "Everything is Awesome". But everything is not awesome- Business's latest plan is to stop all creativity and dissent in the world using the nefarious "Kragle" device, and according to a prophecy foretold by the wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), the only one who can stop it is "The Special"- the most creative, interesting, and important person in the universe, the one who finds the "Piece of Resistance", a mysterious Lego piece with unknown powers. When Emmet ends up accidentally stumbling upon said piece, he finds himself in way over his head, embarking on an adventure with the "Master Builders" of Lego to defeat Business once and for all, chased all the while by the devious Good Cop/Bad Cop (Liam Neeson) and his robot cop army.

Sound familiar to you? Yeah, no kidding. That's the whole idea. Just about everything in The Lego Movie is a skewering of recognizable, retold movie tropes, either in big ways or small ones. Some are pretty obvious: female lead Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) rescues Emmet from the robot cops by reaching out her hand and warning, "come with me if you want to- not die", Vitruvius' prophecy is basically identical to a hundred other "chosen one" plots, and Good Cop/Bad Cop is self-explanatory. But the subversiveness runs much deeper than that, to deliver a profound moral message that is not only surprisingly uncommon (I can't think of any other movie that's said it), but one that speaks to the core of what Lego, as a brand and as a lifestyle, is all about: that working according to pre-set instructions can be useful, but life works best when you think outside the box. This is said many times in many ways in the film, but if there's one line that I should ever want to quote, it'd have to be in the immortal words of the film's version of Batman: once the heroes' plan goes awry, the plastic Caped Crusader remarks, "Looks like we're going to have to wing it! .......(that's a bat pun.)"

Now, hiring voice actors is an art. It's an art that some people don't quite understand- a number of animated movies have just gone for broke and overstuffed on every celebrity that they can find, regardless of whether or not they fit the characters, because casting celebrities is how you get butts in seats, right? No. The voice has to match the character. They've got to be in sync. And on that note, I transition to: holy hell, isn't Will Arnett the absolute perfect choice to play Batman? I mean, yes, there are the other guys - Chris Pratt and Elizabeth Banks make for lovable leads, Morgan Freeman is the obvious pick for a wise wizard, Alison Brie and Charlie Day are hilarious if one-dimensional as Unikitty and Benny, Will Ferrell is surprisingly multi-layered as Lord Business - but really, Bat-Arnett is the one true standout. He plays a better Batman as a joke than some other actors have played him straight. And he's not the only one, either- be on the lookout for a bunch of other cameos of famous LEGO people, including a certain few other superheroes voiced by a certain duo (I'm not saying who!) that appeared in Phil Lord and Chris Miller's previous movie.

Ah, yes, Lord and Miller. At this point, it seems that their modus operandi is to make fantastic movies out of dumb ideas. A movie about food falling from the sky? Bam, the clever, heartfelt Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. An adaptation of a corny 80s TV show? Bam, the hilarious and smart 21 Jump Street. A movie based on a toy with no plot at all? Bam. We get The friggin' Lego Movie. And it works. I haven't seen a movie this fun in a good while.

The name of this blog is Awesome or Awful. I shouldn't have to tell you which one this movie is. It's Awesome. The story is awesome. The visuals are awesome. The creativity is awesome. The creators are Awesome.

Everything is Awesoooooooome!

"The Croods" Review

There's something about cavemen, man. Our early ancestors have been interpreted and re-interpreted time and time again, varying from outlandish parodies of modern life (see The Flintstones or B.C.) to fairly realistic takes on the prehistoric world (see Quest for Fire or Clan of the Cave Bear). It seems like the world has a natural fascination with humans' granddaddies, and the latest caveman work to hit the screen is Dreamworks Animation's The Croods.

The Croods are a family of Neanderthals - father Grug, mother Ugga, daughters Sandy and Eep, son Thunk, and grandma Gran - living in an extremely loose interpretation of prehistoric Earth. The Croods spend their days holed up in their cave, only venturing outside to grab food, such as the eggs of the dangerous beasts that live outside. They are uncomfortable but happy, save for Eep, who's innately curious about the outside world. One night, she sneaks away from the cave and meets up with Guy, a Homo Sapiens with an uncanny knack for invention, whom she instantly takes a very adorable liking to. According to Guy, the End of the World is imminent, as proven by the coming of earthquakes- one of which almost immediately destroys the Croods' cave. With nowhere else to turn, the family looks to Guy to lead them to the paradise of "Tomorrow"... much to Grug's resentment.

The Croods is co-directed by Chris Sanders, he of the venerable Lilo & Stitch and How to Train Your Dragon. His latest film features the same imaginative creature design and gorgeous visuals of his prior work, with many truly amazing sights to see. Have you ever seen a pair of lemurs that have the same tail? A giant green tiger with a bulbous head? Whales that scoot about on land? Human-sized flowers that move about on their own? Well, you have now. The love that went into the production is clear from the opening sequence, which introduces the family using a series of animated cave paintings, which look great and have an adorable style to them.  The next scene, showing the family working together to get "breakfast" (it's nightfall by the time they finally succeed), is just as well-done, wisely giving equal focus to the frenetic and breathtaking visuals and the introduction of the family.

Ah, but with a film as lovely looking as this, there is always a very easy trap for the filmmaker to fall into: spending so much time on the visuals, that they forget to keep the story up to scratch. Sanders and co. seem to recognize this, and take some crucial first steps: with that aforementioned first scene, they set up an important dynamic between the characters, giving each their own roles and establishing their personalities, and are aided by a stellar voice cast- like Emma Stone as Eep and Nicolas Cage as Grug. Though the characters are clearly meant to ape some standard "family sitcom" archetypes (dumb dad, level-headed mom, rebellious teen daughter, snarky grandma (who the dad hates), etc. etc.), they're good archetypes that still have plenty of mileage left in them. Eep goes well beyond her Cloris Leachman is always a good choice for a grandma, and Ryan Reynolds plays as good a love interest as always. At The Croods' onset, it feels like we're going to get a family adventure film for the ages...

...but it never really delivers.

For a film with only 7 characters, it still feels like there are too many. Perhaps a longer work could have juggled them all, but the movie can't balance so many in its 90 minute time frame. There is a quick little moment near the film's end between Grug and Ugga, that serves to highlight this: as Grug is apparently about to leave the group, they grasp each other's hands, and intimately touch foreheads. See, this would be very lovely and poignant... if the two characters' relationship was even the least bit explored. As far as I can remember, Grug and Ugga have two conversations, each about 30 seconds long, and otherwise sparsely interact. Ugga has no scenes to herself, either, and I couldn't tell you a single thing about her personality... hell, until I looked the film up, I didn't even remember her name! Thunk, at least, has a few moments to himself: a scene has him find an animal that he decides to keep, which seems to be setting up a "learning responsibility" subplot for him, but this point is suddenly dropped (literally) and never picked back up. Gran makes a few snarky comments and there is a scene or two where she discusses her life, like a typical grandma character, but she doesn't do or say anything of note. Sandy, the baby, seems to undergo some form of maturation - from a feral, animalistic, violent little toddler into a happy and giggling child - with nobody making any comment on it whatsoever. It seems pretty clear that these characters once had more to do, but their scenes were cut out or reworked. It'd have been wise to completely remove one or more of these characters, so the rest of the cast could get better focus.

Eep and Guy's relationship, as well as Grug's resentment of Guy's leadership role, are the two plots that are actually focused on, and as a result, they are the ones that work. Eep and Guy actually feel like an original kind of couple- unlike the comical awkwardness and nervousness of so many other teen romances, these two are open and intimate from the onset (as cavemen, with no social standards, probably would). Eep is especially adorable in her open admiration of Guy, and never hesitates to get as close to him as she can. Grug's fear of new things and anger over his growing uselessness is presented as humorous (and it often is), but at the same time, his behavior is always understandable and relatable, and by the end, you'll want to cheer for him.

Well, if there's one thing that The Croods has changed about me, it's that I'm finally able to write words like "Eep", "Grug", and "Ugga" in my reviews, which I've always deeply dreamed of. For those who aren't unprofessional film critics, there's still enough fun to be had with Croods' imagination and creativity, so if you haven't got anything better to do, it may be worth a look.

Stars: ***

All Right

"Lincoln" Review

It's been annoyingly common in recent years for people to romanticize the political figures of the past, primarily as a way to disparage the political figures of the present. These damn Congressmen, with their stubborn behavior, dirty tactics, and strong-arming! They're a total discrace to their brilliant predecessors, who showed nothing but the utmost respect to their opponents, and always played by the rules.

Well, needless to say, that's not how it really worked. Luckily, old Spielberg is here to pull back the curtain.

Despite what the incredibly bland title may suggest, Lincoln is not a film that dramatizes the entire life of Abraham Lincoln, but rather, a period of only a few months. Specifically, the months following his re-election, where he made the most important decision of his career- the decision to pass the Thirteenth Amendment. This is an incredibly hot-button issue among Lincoln's peers, especially in the wake of the ongoing Civil War, and the controversy surrounding Lincoln's issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation, so say Lincoln's critics, was a major overreach on Lincoln's part, and a huge abuse of his powers. In the current political climate, the very idea of an entire anti-slavery amendment seems like a complete waste of time.

But Honest Abe is adamant. He believes that securing the end of slavery is the key to finally ending the war, and he and his cabinet hatch a plan: to weasel their way into earning the 20 necessary votes from House Democrats, by any means necessary.

When it comes to a movie about Abraham Lincoln, there's always one major question on everyone's mind: "How good is the guy playing Lincoln?" Well, Daniel Day-Lewis is our guy this time around, so the question is barely even necessary. The answer is that he is awesome. Lewis is a prime choice for his resemblance to the 16th President alone, but that's hardly the limit of his talent. Lewis gives the president emotional depth and complexity that we've rarely seen in past cultural depictions, and as a result, he feels a hell of a lot more human. His portrayal is noteworthy for its historical accuracy- he has a high-pitched, even nasally voice, and he's prone to witty quips and telling tangential stories. These little quirks are sure to please historians, but they pull the double-duty of making Lincoln very respectable for the audience. His occasional social awkwardness (as he makes inopportune comments or tells pointless anecdotes) not only makes him relatable, it also makes him just that more powerful when he breaks out another incredible,  speech. His amusing anecdotes seem pointless to those he tells them to, but to his audience beyond the fourth wall, each one adds an extra layer of depth to the man. Though Lincoln is absent for some surprisingly long sections of the film, his presence never leaves you.

Considering how wonderful Lewis' performance is, it's surprising and interesting that much of the post-release buzz is actually surrounding another actor: the always-excellent Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. Stevens, historically, was a Radical Republican that believed in something that even the staunchest of his fellow abolitionists had trouble believing: that black people are equal in every way to whites. Needless to say, his general conduct was loud and confrontational, and he was quite reluctant to compromise. This is the sort of character that Jones is famous for, and while I wouldn't really say that he steals the show - Lewis is too damn good for that to happen - it's still a very respectable performance.

The other supporting roles are all great, but they seem a little tangential. Secretary of State William H. Seward exists mostly to argue with Lincoln over the latter's political decisions, and Robert & Tad Lincoln (the President's sons) have little to do aside from aid to the film's fatherly portrayal of Abe. They're all good, mind you, they just feel underdeveloped, with the sole real exception of Sally Ride as Mary Todd Lincoln. Mary was a notoriously unstable woman, and the scenes where the couple argue are among the most intense in the entire film. There's something about an angry married couple that is even more exciting than war or tight political battles.

Lincoln is not without its flaws. For a movie about slavery, it's annoyingly light on the black perspective- the only African-American characters in the movie are a few Union soldiers and Elizabeth Keckley, all of whom have only small supporting roles. And the ending drags on too long, unwisely depicting Lincoln's assassination; this would be a fitting ending if the film were a full-on biopic, but since it is not, it feels unnecessary and tacked on.

But to focus on minor squabble such as these misses the point. Indeed, you'll notice that it didn't dock my score at all. The purpose of Lincoln is to take a look into a few moments in the life of an extraordinary man, and to marvel at the skill of the actor portraying him. What more could you possibly want?

*****
Awesome

"Silver Linings Playbook" Review

Mental illness is a terrible thing. It comes in many forms, with many names, and affects many people- but there are very few who understand it. To the general public, those who are mentally unwell are dangerous and scary, or, barring that, tragic lost causes that have no way of supporting themselves anymore. This is reflected in our movies: if a film character is "crazy", chances are that means they're either a criminal mastermind, a deranged murderer, or a babbling man-child locked up in a padded cell.

Silver Linings Playbook breaks that trend.

Pat (Bradley Cooper) is being let out of a mental institution after an eight month stay. He was in there because of his previously-undiagnosed bipolar disorder, which was finally discovered after he caught his wife, Nikki, cheating on him. Needless to say, he didn't take it well, and responded to the situation using his fists.

Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) is a tragically young widow, whose husband's death led her to dive deep into a depression, and attempt to cope by becoming a sex addict. She's since managed to control her bodily urges, but remains highly depressed and emotionally distant.

The two meet, by chance, at dinner, at the home of a mutual friend. Neither of them are particularly adept at making friends, especially in their current emotional states, but the two eventually manage to hit it off. Pat's goal is to reconcile with Nikki (who has moved and filed a restraining order), and is getting in shape, becoming an avid reader, becoming more emotionally open, and doing other such things in the hopes of being able to impress her. Tiffany offers to deliver a letter to Nikki, under the condition that Pat enter a dance competition with her. Thus, they begin to spend an hour or so of their days together, discussing life and training avidly.

Pat and Tiffany are incredible characters, brought to life impeccably by Cooper and Lawrence. Pat's openness, eagerness, and unending optimism makes him endearing, but all that barely serves to cover up his frightening and depressing neuroses. His obsession with Nikki becomes very disturbing, as he judges seemingly everything he does based on whether or not she would like it. He becomes unhinged at the slightest offenses- a scene in which he rages to his parents (Robert DeNiro and Jacki Weaver) over the simple matter of his wedding video is terrifying. Tiffany, by contrast, piques the audience's interest by being very reserved and silent. She behaves like a socially-awkward teenager, stumbling through her conversations and tripping over her words. Her strange and often confusing behavior make for a character that you really want to know more about. And when you do find out her story... it's far from a pretty one.

Unfortunately, though the characters are amazing, the story surrounding them is less so. Underneath all of the complex layers of excellent writing and acting, the film's basic plot is really your basic romantic comedy fare, minus most of the comedy. Boy meets girl, boy and girl don't like each other at first, boy and girl eventually come to like each other, boy and girl get together, boy and girl discover some kind of conflict, boy and girl resolve conflict, boy and girl kiss. You can guess at almost everything that's going to happen before it does, which is common in a lot of low-rent romcoms, but you'd think a film like Sliver Linings Playbook would be above such things.

Silver Linings Playbook is worth a look. Its frank treatment of instability and relationships is commendable, and executed very well. Just don't expect a spectacular story to go along with it.

***
All Right

"Les Miserables" Review

Translating a musical to the screen is a more difficult task than you might think. You can accuse them of whatever you like, but the simple fact is that film audiences are far less accepting of actors breaking into song than stage audiences are. Unless the director is very careful - or takes the easy way, and makes it animated & accompanied by singing fawns and bluebirds - a musical movie may result more in jeers than cheers.

Thankfully, Tom Hooper knows how to handle musicals. And good thing, too, since the musical in question is the most famous of the modern age: Les Misérables. He proves that he earned his Oscar (in 2010, for The King's Speech), and by assembling a phenomenal all-star cast to sing Victor Hugo's immortal story, he creates something truly epic.

"Les Miz" is about many things and many people, so the most basic plot summary I could give is: Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is a recently freed convict, whose only wrongdoings were (A) stealing a loaf of bread and (B) trying to escape prison, who has decided to create a better, more respectable life for himself. Under an assumed name, he becomes the mayor of a town, and witnesses a conflict inside a factory that results in a worker, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), being fired and thrown out. Fantine has an illegitimate daughter, Cosette (Isabelle Allen and Amanda Seyfried), whom she has been sending money to. In a desperate attempt to continue supporting Cosette, Fantine sells the few meager items she has and becomes a prostitute. She is eventually arrested, but is saved by Valjean- who realizes that the policeman arresting her is Javert (Russel Crowe), a former guard of Valjean's former prison. When Fantine dies in the hospital, Valjean becomes Cosette's caretaker, but throughout the years, he must constantly evade the pursuit of Valjean, as well as survive the June Rebellion- the infamous night in 1832, when Paris becomes aflood with insurgents against the king... one of whom has fallen in love with Cosette.

Like any narrative work, the story of a musical is important, but its true appeal lies in its music. How well the songs fit the mood, how they move the plot along, how memorable they are, and how well the actors sing them. It's no secret that Les Misérables is a good musical on the page, but even the greatest works of art require the proper treatment if one wants to translate them to the screen. If there's one surefire way to do it, it's the way Hooper has- by having the cast sing all of the songs live, as the scenes are being filmed. Usually, in a movie musical, actors record their songs before hand, and lip sync to them during filming. This does have its advantages. If the song's not being performed live, this allows the cinematographer to create many cuts and framings that can enhance the mood of the songs. But the real wonder of Les Misérables is that, by doing the opposite, the simple filming style increases the emotion of every song. If Hooper had gone for the standard movie-musical format... well, I don't think the film would have worked at all.

I don't want to buy the soundtrack album of this movie. Partly because I already have Les Miz's West End recording (and the original French concept album), but also because, without the visual component, the adaptation's music doesn't sound right. The notes are off, and the actors sometimes muffle or mumble their words in ways that don't make sense on an album. But when you see them as they sing, nothing sounds wrong. Although all of the actors have musical experience of some sort, some more so than others, the majority of them are primarily known more for their screen work. This is key. When the actors are free from both the expectations of a stage audience - the expectations of a passionate, technically perfect performance - and the comforting safety net of recording in a studio, they are suddenly required to not only sing, but act. Just singing about how you feel won't cut it in the up-close-and-personal world of movies; you've gotta sell it. And the whole cast isn't getting Oscar buzz for nothing.

Are you sick of hearing about how great Anne Hathaway is? Too bad! Because good lord is she amazing in Les Misérables. If her preparation for the role (she lost over 25 pounds so as to appear sickly and near death) wasn't enough evidence, her performance shows us that she has essentially become Fantine. I sobbed right along with her- she doesn't do much else, but given her horrific circumstances, you can't blame her. We've already seen it in the advertising, but her performance of "I Dreamed a Dream", the beloved Susan Boyle anthem, can't be spoken highly of enough. Through a single, static shot of her face, Hathaway weeps through the song while still miraculously maintaining her vocal range, and more than any other singer before her, embodies every word of the song in voice and image. Fantine dies within the first 1/4th of the movie, but you never forget her.

Not to say that the rest of the cast isn't fantastic. You'd expect nothing less but perfection from Hugh Jackman, and perfection is what you get- his Valjean may, as with Hathaway's, become the definitive performance. Russell Crowe has been criticized in some circles for having a rougher, less clean voice than his castmates, but I think it suits Javert's calm yet ruthless character- and of course, being Russell G. D. Crowe, he still acts the hell out of it. Cosette is, unfortunately, not an especially defined character, but Amanda Seyfried has a natural charm about her that gives her a little bit more weight. And as for her younger counterpart, Isabelle Allen, I must say that she amazes me. Not only is she a good singer, but she also has an uncanny resemblance to that famous engraving of Cosette, so prominently featured on the Les Miz musical's advertisements (and replicated impeccably by Allen for the film's, as seen above). So excellent is she that, after filming wrapped, the West End production actually cast her in the exact same role! Congrats to her, and I hope she has a future in performing.

Quite possibly the sole complaint I could make about the entire production is the relationship between Cosette and Marius. Even then, it's a small complaint: it's the way they meet. That is, if you could call it a "meeting". The two casually spot each other on the street, without even a word from each other, and yet in the next scene, each sings about how they are awed by, and in love with, the other. Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne are good enough actors that they sell the ensuing relationship (their duet, "A Heart Full of Love", is lovely), but I never really got over how strangely obsessed they became after a single glance. Love At First Sight is a cliché that's fairly common, especially in Victor Hugo's day, but you'd think an author of his stature would be above such melodrama. And in any case, it simply makes no sense when viewed in the modern day.

For being a novel that's 1400 pages long, Les Misérables is remarkably well-suited to being adapted into a 165-minute movie. Most of the plot doesn't feel condensed or abrupt; in fact, it feels like there's plenty of breathing room to spare, to fill up with pretty camerawork and deliberate pacing. The emotional impact of the story is squeezed out of every inch of the movie- one of the most beautiful shots is the very first, that of a tattered French flag floating in the ocean. Given how often a nation's flag is used for symbolic reasons, the metaphor is pretty obvious, but that doesn't make it any less cool.

Go see Les Misérables. You probably already did, but it never hurts to see something twice. Assuming you haven't seen it twice already... Or three times... or four...

Stars: *****
Awesome

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Review

Everyone else and their mother has already said it at this point, but it's still true: J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit did not have to be split into three movies. It didn't even really have to be split into two movies. The story is big in scope, to be sure, but the book was able to cover it all in 300 pages; a movie would easily be able to do so in 3 hours or less.

But this dumb idea just may have worked out after all. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may be only the first third of a single story, but it doesn't actually feel that way. Instead, it stands on its own. It really is the first movie in a trilogy, not the first incomplete fragment of a single film.

Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit of the title, lives a peaceful, quiet life in the rather small hobbit community of the Shire. He's fond of food, relaxation, and visitors- but not adventure. Oh, certainly not adventure! Alas, adventure finds him, in the form of a wise old wizard named Gandalf and a band of 13 dwarves. The dwarves, led by one Thorin Oakenshield, are out to reclaim their gold and land from Smaug, a nasty dragon that stole it from them many years prior. Hobbits are naturally small and quick creatures, so Gandalf is convinced that Bilbo would make the perfect "burglar" to help them steal back the riches. At first, Bilbo balks... but the lure of a new experience wins him over, and he finds himself running off to join the quest.

The real heart of Tolkien's universe isn't the beautiful locales or the exotic creatures, though those certainly are cool- it's the many (many, many, many...) distinct characters, with their own detailed journeys, quirks, and depths. The Lord of the Rings films did a wonderful job of portraying a variety of interesting people, and so does The Hobbit. Martin Freeman, best known as Watson in The BBC's Sherlock, was perfectly cast for the role of Bilbo, especially the Bilbo that we see in the film. In Tolkien's novel, Bilbo felt like a crotchety old man with all his griping and grouching, and was a real load. Until he found the ring, he was of no use at all to the dwarves. The movies, by contrast, portray him more like an awkward twentysomething- he rarely knows just what he's supposed to be doing or saying, and handles himself poorly along the way. Freeman has portrayed this sort of character in the past, and does it well here - the initial scene, where Bilbo stands frozen in disbelief as a dozen strangers trash his house, is especially hilarious - but the really interesting part is how we see Bilbo mature and evolve into something more. He's barely able to ride his pony at the beginning, but by the end, we've seen him outsmart dangerous monsters, traverse hundreds of miles with nary a scratch on him, and leap into the field of battle to protect his comrades. It's a side of the character you don't expect to see, but once you do, it's greatly satisfying.

Ian Holm, who portrayed Bilbo in the Rings trilogy, also appears, as a 60-years-older version of the hobbit that narrates the story. Holm has a great voice, like an old Oxford scholar, and he's the perfect choice for the narrator of a fairy tale like this one. Holm isn't the only Ian to reprise his role from the last trilogy. There's also Sir Ian - Sir Ian McKellen - as Gandalf, who still has all of the charm and wittiness that we saw of him in Lord of the Rings.  Unfortunately, he really doesn't have much to do in this one. For the most part, Gandalf stands around, looking wise, occasionally saying smart things, and disappearing for long stretches, only to return just in time to get the cast out of a bad scrape. Granted, that's the same way that he was portrayed in the book- but that was one of the book's bigger flaws! And it doesn't help that McKellen seems distressingly old in An Unexpected Journey- his voice is scratchy and occasionally mumbling, and he moves a lot slower than he did only a decade prior. It's still a pretty good performance, but it also served to remind me of the mortality of a really great actor- and it makes me sad.

Despite the greatly-expanded length of the story, Jackson and co. apparently didn't think to give any more development to the company of dwarves, who are all completely indistinct and mostly unmemorable. I honestly can't remember most of their names (it doesn't help that many of them are very similar- there's a Nori, a Dori, AND an Ori), and the attempts to give them any sort of distinct personality traits are quite weak. It'd have been nice to see more of them. The only real exception is the leader, Thorin, played by Richard Armitage. Thorin is the grandson of a dwarf king, and he defeated the great Orc leader Azog in a massive battle to reclaim the dwarves' gold. Obviously, the quest failed, but it made for a great battle scene that showed off Thorin's deterministic spirit and status as an excellent fighter. I really felt for Thorin and his cause throughout the film, and he's practically the second protagonist next to Bilbo. And what a great co-protagonist he is!

But yet again, the guy who really steals the show is that good old skinny freak, Gollum. Andy Serkis returns to voice and motion-capture him (in, sadly, only one scene), and it's awesome to just see him again. Gollum's game of riddles with Bilbo is fun to watch, for the thrill of watching the two characters bounce off of each other for a while- and you're given enough time to try and solve the riddles yourself, which is a nice bonus. Serkis is a remarkable actor, and he gives Gollum an impressive amount of character and personality in his limited screen time. When Gollum suddenly goes from scowling anger to cheerily announcing that, if Bilbo doesn't win their game, then "we eats it whole!", it's really funny. Serkis has already won a sizable amount of awards for his work- which is a real testament to his enormous talent, considering how rarely voice and mo-cap actors are given any respect at all.

While Gollum's cameo is welcome (and necessary), others are... not so much. See, in expanding The Hobbit and turning it into a trilogy prequel to Lord of the Rings, Jackson decided to bring back classic characters from that trilogy, such as Christopher Lee's Saruman and Cate Blanchett's Galadriel. I suppose it's neat to see them again, but their jarringly brief appearances are superflous, existing only to forward a subplot foreshadowing the return of Sauron- which is also superflous! It's exciting, I suppose, to witness the first rumblings of Rings' story, but it's also unnecessary. The Hobbit is about the hobbit! Not the adventures that come after his!

One thing that has been buzzed about regarding The Hobbit is its use of 48 Frames Per Second. This means that it's been filmed at twice the frame rate that the majority of movies are shot in (24 Frames Per Second). It allows for a heavy amount of detail, and for a visual look that closer resembles real life- or, as some other critics have criticized, a TLC reality show. I saw An Unexpected Journey in 2D and in 24 Frames Per Second, so I can't comment on those elements- but I can certainly say that it's quite obvious that it was meant to be seen that way. The battle scenes, when shown at 24 FPS, look a bit jerky and unnatural, as if it's been sped up. The 2D conversion really doesn't work either. Many foreground or background elements seem unusually flat, and it feels like you're watching a 3D movie with one eye closed. It's quite a shame, because for the most part, the special effects are spectacular.

The first part of The Hobbit has some problems, relating mostly to extraneous technical or storyline additions. But it's also a very fun movie, and one you won't regret seeing. Bring on Part 2!

Stars: ****
Awesome

"Rise of the Guardians" Review

Every time you see a poster or watch a trailer for Rise of the Guardians, listen closely. If you listen hard enough, you can hear the regretful moans of countless movie studio executives, tearfully crying out, "Why didn't I think of this?!"

Yes, the central concept of Rise of the Guardians - that of a superhero team consisting of various childhood fables - is so brilliant and full of potential that it's really astounding that no one has tried it before. And with an artist like William Joyce involved (the film is based on his Guardians of Childhood book series), you'd have every reason to expect great things. Well, we've received good things, certainly good things, but a fair share of bad things, too. Rise is good enough for me- but with all the potential it has, it's a bit of a disappointment.

The Guardians of Childhood are a group of world-renowned folk heroes who have been chosen by the Man in the Moon to protect the sanctity and purity of children. The team, for hundreds of years, has consisted of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman - the "Big Four" - but the Man has finally decided on a fifth: Jack Frost. Frost and the Guardians aren't the only mythological creatures out there, but to have the powers of a Guardian requires children to believe in you. If kids don't believe, you have no such power. This is bad news for Jack, who's long been forgotten by the world. And the world is about to get much worse- a sinister, feared presence, also long forgotten, has appeared to make his mark, and he aims to destroy the Guardians and all that they have worked for.

Rise of the Guardians is a winner based on the art alone. So much imagination went into every single scrap of the Guardians, and it's a sight to behold. Santa's Workshop is filled with toys, elves, and Yetis bustling around and mingling in fun and amusing ways; the Tooth Fairy's castle is run like a bustling business, with little helper-fairies scrambling all across the world to obtain lost teeth; and the Easter Bunny's warren is covered in beautiful and vibrant colors, where Easter eggs grow from flowers (!) and the rivers run in every hue of the rainbow. The Sandman doesn't have a domain, but he does have sand, and what incredible sand! Anyone who knows much about animation understands how incredibly difficult it is to even draw sand on a computer, but Dreamworks has created sand that dances, floats, and flies about in all directions, and it's gorgeous. Jack Frost, similarly, is a wanderer, and he controls snow and ice. Both of these are just as hard to animate, but once again, it's achieved with flying colors. Jack performs some impressive feats with the ice, molding it, controlling it, and drawing on it, but it never stops looking real. At the film's very beginning, where Jack breaks through a frozen lake and it crumbles into fragments around him, it looked so real and so beautiful that I teared up. I really did! And that wasn't even the only time the gorgeous animation moved me so.

Now, with a hero team made up of folk icons like these, there's only one possible choice for their arch-nemesis: the Boogeyman! And, yes, our villain in the film is indeed the Boogeyman... or as they inexplicably insist on calling him most of the time, "Pitch Black". Unfortunately, the otherwise limitless imagination of the film's art design staggers to a complete standstill when it comes to him. While the Guardians have beautifully designed homes and abilities, Pitch is depressingly simple, just a tall man with grey skin and a black coat. His lair is similarly bland- it's just a dark basement with a bunch of cages. The really sad thing is, the Boogeyman is quite possibly the only character of the group that allows complete artistic freedom. While the Guardians each have common depictions or simple requirements that limit the ways they can be designed (Tooth Fairy has to be winged and colorful, Santa has to be a fat old man in red, Easter Bunny has to be a rabbit, etc.), there is absolutely no limitations on what the Boogeyman could look like. I mean, go ahead- name me a physical trait of the Boogeyman! You can't! There was so much they could go with here, especially since Pitch is supposed to be the very embodiment of a child's fears. Is a middle-aged Edward Cullen lookalike really the best they could come up with?

Oh, and his minions are just a limitless horde of black horses made of dream dust. "Night Mares", see? Har dee har har.

Easily the weakest part of Rise is its screenplay. Taken on its own merits, it's junk! Most attempts at comedic dialogue fall flat, there's an abundance of cliché lines, and the story structure is sophomoric. I was able to accurately quote entire lines of dialogue, despite having never seen the film before (the villain's annoyingly standard "join me, hero!" scene happens, in the most predictable way possible. And guess how the hero responds!). The plot feels unfocused, and sometimes seems to be structured more like a miniseries than a movie. One 10-minute plot thread has the Guardians helping the Tooth Fairy to help her with her job, and it all goes swimmingly. The next 10 minutes have them trying to save Easter. The next 10, Jack's trying to discover his past. There is no real overarching journey of any kind- or at least, not a physical journey. The intended storyline is basically your standard "Hero's Journey" for Jack, where we're supposed to see him move past his own doubts in himself and become a real hero. The only problem is, this is rather botched. It's not made clear that Jack is insecure about himself, only that he isn't interested in joining a group. This fits his established status as a drifter, and the concept that he's looking for answers in life is only directly informed to us by other characters as they speak to him. The film's climax is disappointing, as despite the global consequences at stake, the final battle is confined to a single small area, and it's over in quite a short period of time.

Rise's is saved, partially by the animation, and partially by the spirit and drive of the cast. Some surprising choices are made, but they all work amazingly. Alec Baldwin is Santa, who has a Russian accent, and yet after the initial surprise wears off, this fits him perfectly. Hugh Jackman is the Easter Bunny, and while his accent is unexpectedly based on a stereotypical Australian (Jack even calls him the "Easter Kangaroo"), it actually fits with his rugged-adventurer personality. Isla Fisher's cute and friendly voice sounds perfect for a fairy, and Chris Pine gives Jack a young, roguish tone that's befitting of Captain Kirk himself. Even Pitch, a bland character as far as design goes, is made at least somewhat interesting by Jude Law's dark, imposing interpretation.

Rise of the Guardians, if nothing else, may go down in my mental history books as the only mediocre movie I've ever actually cried at. If you're like me, and are a fan of animation or appreciate art and character design a great deal, then this is one movie you definitely should see. If you prefer plot, then there's not much to recommend.

Stars: ***
All Right

"Skyfall" Review

There's been a host of production problems and setbacks, but in the end, it's just as it's always been foretold: James Bond has returned. And boy howdy, is his return glorious. If you'll forgive my relative inexperience - I've only seen 7 of his 23 adventures - Skyfall may be Bond's absolute best.

After the confusing world-saving/personal-revenge conundrum that was the plot of 2008's Quantum of Solace, this new film wisely dials back on the scale. This time around, it's not the entire world that's threatened, but MI6, Bond's employer. Many in England's government are now beginning to believe that MI6 is incompetent, outdated, and no longer necessary- and it doesn't help that 007, by far their best agent, is believed to be dead after a mishap during his last assignment. Things get worse when Silva, a former agent of MI6, begins blackmailing, exposing, and killing other operatives in a personal attempt to humiliate M, the head of the operation. But, of course, James Bond is alive and well, and he returns just in time- but Silva is a manipulative villain, and to stop him, Bond will have to confront his own past in addition to M's.

A common complaint of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, Daniel Craig's first two outings as Bond, was that their gritty tone and emphasis on realism & character development clashed badly with the fun-filled formulaic stories of their predecessors. Well, I believe those critics have now been satisfied. Though Skyfall still has the successful tone, style, and personality of the prior films, it also brings back a lot of the fun, and resurrects some the Bond franchise's clichés with fresh twists that work very well with the Craig films' style. Silva is very much the wisecracking supervillain that we expect from a Bond bad guy, but he's got some depth to him: his backstory, where he was abandoned by MI6 and tortured to the point of attempted suicide, is incredibly tragic; and he has the deformity that's required of most Bond villains, but it's far more hidden, and far more horrific, than anyone who's come before him. As for other classic tropes, like Q, Moneypenny, shaken (not stirred) martinis, "Bond... James Bond", the Aston Martin, the distinctive MI6 headquarters, that iconic inside-the-gunbarrel shot... well, without spoiling too much, I can definitely tell you that you'll have seen them all return by the end credits.

The cast of Skyfall is made up entirely of pure talent. At this point, we all know that Daniel Craig is a great Bond and Judi Dench is a great M, but this film is the first to show the true depths of the characters and, by extension, the way their actors portray them. Bond is noticeably warmer in this film than in the last two, more prone to quips & smart remarks, and showing genuine caring for some people- quite a bit closer to the James we all know and love. Again, I don't want to spoil anything, but the location of Skyfall's denouement - and the source of the film's title - has a personal connection to Bond, and it reveals a deep side of him that we have never seen before. M, so long before a stern and imposing figure, has more tenderness to her here, with a heartrending scene in the beginning where she tries to write Bond's obituary, and a climax that she spends injured and in pain- giving her some rare vulnerability.

The villain, Silva (Javier Bardem), is one of the most entertaining bad guys of any movie released this year. He's devilishly clever, even more witty than Bond himself, and is somehow able to be both creepy and funny at the exact same time. Witness a scene where he suggestively comes on to Bond, opening up his legs, putting his hand on Bond's knee, and remarking, "There's always a first time for everything, isn't it?" It'd be disturbing, but his behavior makes it funny, and Bond's response ("What makes you think it's the first time?") defuses it into hilarity. And when Silva's not funny or scary, he's... sad. Throughout the film, Silva tells several stories of his past, and they are uniformly depressing, showing a lonely and abusive life. The fact that he describes them with the same passive, mildly amused expression as always makes them all the worse.

Bond's less alone than usual, as he has a wide array of other MI6 members backing him and M up (CIA member Felix Leiter is a no-show this time around). Eve (Naomie Harris), another agent and Bond's partner for the movie's first half, is a great character, showing just as much fortitude as Bond in the field, but displaying a lot more enjoyment and humor in her work. Once you find out just who she is, Eve becomes even cooler. Q makes his debut in the new series with Skyfall, and rather than the foppish old man of the prior continuity, our new Q is a young and handsome geek (Ben Wishaw), with lots of enthusiasm but also some inexperience and naivete. Neither he nor Ralph Fiennes' character, Mallory, show up much, and thus they don't have much depth, but they do make up an interesting, important part of the plot.

You wouldn't expect Sam Mendes, who has previously directed only quiet dramas, to be particularly skilled at directing action movies, but he sure as hell is. Every big scene in Skyfall is memorable, from a fight atop a collapsing train, to a fistfight inside a Chinese gambling ring, to a massive shootout on the grounds of... well. You'll see for yourself. The scenes are filmed well, giving us enough time to understand what's going on while still keeping us on the edge of our seats. Just as importantly, every one of these scenes also has a tinge of humor to it, which adds a ton of personality and keeps things from getting too gritty, even if danger's at its peak.

Special mention ought to go to Adele's theme song for the film, also called "Skyfall". Ordinarily a film's opening credits aren't really something important to mention in a review, but Bond movies have always prided themselves on far-out, psychedelic openings with superstar singers, and "Skyfall" ranks among the absolute best of the entire franchise. If there was anyone out there who was born to sing a James Bond theme, it's the soft, sultry Adele, and wow! She pulls it off! The cryptic and vague lyrics, combined with some astounding visuals (such as guns turning into gravestones or some remarkable images created from "blood" moving through "water"), put this Bond song (this "Bong"? ...no, let's not) right up there with "Goldfinger", "Live and Let Die", "A View to a Kill", and Casino Royale's "You Know My Name".

I've spent nearly all of this review comparing Skyfall to its 22 predecessors. That was inevitable. Everyone has seen a James Bond movie, or at least seen a parody, homage, or summary, and there's no way to look at any new ones without also looking back on one's memories of the old. In that respect, Skyfall succeeds wonderfully, blending classic Bond with a brand new style, but the really interesting thing is how well the film succeeds on its own. You could sit through all of Skyfall without having ever seen another James Bond movie, and you would never be lost or confused. So, basically, this is a movie for absolutely everyone. So go see it!

Stars: ****
Awesome

"Dracula" Review

During the opening credits of Dracula, a haunting, creepy rendition of the famous music from "Swan Lake" plays as the cast and main crew of the film are revealed. It is the only music played during the entire film, and afterwards, every scene is accompanied only by background sound effects. It's an eerie effect- and Dracula is an eerie film.

In the opening minutes, a man named Renfield has travelled to Transylvania to sell a house in London to Count Dracula. Though Renfield ignores the townspeople's warnings that Dracula is a dangerous vampire, they are all too correct- and Renfield is turned into a deranged servant of the Count. Upon his arrival in London, Dracula begins an assault on its citizens, such as a young woman named Lucy. His next victim is her friend, Mina, and only her husband John and the brilliant scientist Abraham Van Helsing can stop Dracula before it's too late.

The central performance of the film - and the one that everyone remembers - is Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula. Lugosi is utterly spellbinding, an unsettling mix of likable and terrifying. His behavior is always polite and friendly, yet he never loses an eerie air, with a strange, hypnotic gaze (punctuated by lighting on his face). His dialogue is always extremely slow and deliberate: "I am... Dracula!" As a result, he creeps you out no matter what he's saying. And as soon as his sophisticated facade is dropped and he enters full vampire mode, the horror increases. Dracula has always been described as able to hypnotize people with his gaze, but this version of the story is the only film in which we see that firsthand: just as much as he hypnotizes people in-story, so too does Lugosi hypnotize you as you watch the film.

The cast is great all around. Mina (Helen Chandler), our leading lady, acts basically the way you would expect someone dealing with a vampire to act: unknowing, then confused, then afraid, then terrified. She's quite believable, and in the moments when she is put under Dracula's control, her behavior is chilling. Renfield (Dwight Frye), Dracula's crazy assistant, is delightfully unhinged, quite scary but also pretty funny. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), essentially our hero, is quite compelling. He seems to know everything about vampires and how to deal with them, and there's an awesome scene in which Dracula confronts him, and he shows absolutely no fear. Less interesting, unfortunately, is John Harker (David Manners), who was the lead protagonist of the novel (as Jonathan) but has almost nothing to do here, as everything important that happened to him in the book is transferred to other characters in the movie- Renfield for the opening scenes, and Van Helsing for the later ones. He's basically just there, which is disappointing. Also, Dracula's Brides are in the movie, but have no point at all- they awaken with Dracula and show up when he converts Renfield, but never show up or get mentioned ever again.

As I mentioned before, Dracula has no music accompanying it, only sound effects. This isn't always a good idea - Frankenstein, for example, would have benefited quite a bit from actually using music instead of silence - but in Dracula it works spectacularly. In only the second scene, there are several long shots of Dracula and his Brides awakening and exiting their coffins, and the only sounds are the noises made by the coffins. A few other scenes use sound effects almost as if they are used instead of music- when the "White Lady" (Lucy) begins attacking children, all we get is a brief clip of someone walking through a neighborhood as a little girl cries somewhere in the distance. It's far more unsettling than any music could have been.

Dracula earns its reputation completely. It's known as a classic, and it absolutely is. It's got Bela Lugosi- could you even ask for more?

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome

"The Phantom of the Opera" Review

Gaston Leroux's novel The Phantom of the Opera has been adapted into so many productions that it's a little absurd, with more than 20 adaptations in the medium of film alone. The very first one - before that iconic musical, before the Hammer film, before even the 1943 Claude Rains movie - was released in 1925 by the soon-to-be-legendary Universal, and starring the already-legendary Lon Chaney.

As we all know well, the "phantom" that "haunts" the Paris Opera House in the 1880s is really a deformed man by the name of Erik, who lives in the caverns underneath the Opera. He has fallen in love with a young singer named Christine, and he brings her career to great heights with the help of his tutoring (and a bit of blackmail). But this comes at a price: Erik's one demand is that, when the time comes, Christine must give her love to him. And when he finally comes to collect, she is more than a little unwilling... and the Phantom doesn't like that at all.

Phantom is notable for having an incredibly early instance of Technicolor, during the Masquerade ball scene- apparently there were 17 minutes filmed, but the scene I saw only ran for 4 or 5 minutes. It's amusingly primitive, and looks quite washed out (probably from age), but it's still neat to see, just because of how early it really is.

As for the progression of the plot, it's actually merely acceptable. Christine's relationship with her lover, Raoul, isn't really given enough focus, and he's a little flat and one-dimensional as a result. Carlotta, Christine's rival, doesn't appear enough- basically all scenes related to her character are given to her mother, not Carlotta herself. Other adaptations did well by having her act on her own authority, making her much stronger.A character by the name of Ledoux feels like a deus ex machina: he somehow knows all of the Phantom's secrets, claiming to have "been studying him for months"- but how could he have known all of these things without other characters being aware of him, and why didn't he tell anyone sooner, and most importantly, why did he want to investigate what seemed like a ghost in the first place? (Now, this one actually has an explanation - Ledoux was filmed as The Persian, a character from the novel who was a friend of the Phantom's, but for whatever reason, the intertitles completely changed his character.) You can't fault the many fun sequences - like a genuinely well-done ballet at the beginning (even if you can't hear whatever it is they're dancing to), that famous scene of the chandelier collapsing, or the sheer spectacle of the whole film, with an enormous number of extras - nor some great intertitles ("You dance above the bodies of tortured men!") - but as a whole, the movie could use a bit of work.

Ah, but of course, technical tricks and story aren't what you want to see when you watch this movie. You want to see the Man of A Thousand Faces do his thing! Lon Chaney's Phantom is already renowned, even by the people who haven't seen the film (that is, most average moviegoers), and he's terrifying. His makeup is astounding in its effectiveness, and it's a primally chilling effect. His acting is great too, as he had found the perfect way to be over-the-top without being silly. The famous scene where Christine (played by Mary Philbin) unmasks him is perfectly done- Chaney shouts, stares at the camera for a second (to allow the audience to finish screaming/scream some more?), stands up and turns around to look at Philbin, and points a long, accusing finger at the girl. "Feast your eyes," his intertitle says, "glut your soul on my accursed ugliness!" And then he lets out quite possibly the best evil laugh in cinema history- and it's one you don't even hear.

The originally filmed ending for Phantom of the Opera was much like the ending of the book, and most other adaptations: Erik sadly lets Christine and Raoul go, to be together, and after he watches them go, he dies of a broken heart. This, I think, would be the better ending, since it's a bit more dramatic, fitting, and gives a bit more sympathy to the Phantom. But the studio thought it wasn't exciting enough, and this version makes him quite unsympathetic anyway, so the ending was replaced with an action sequence in which the Phantom spirits Christine away on a carriage, chased by an angry mob. They overturn the carriage, freeing Christine, and the Phantom is chased to the edge of a riverbank. Now, though I said before that I think I'd have liked the original ending better, it's hard for me NOT to love what happens next: as the angry mob closes in, and Erik knows his doom is here, he suddenly appears to pull something out of his coat and hold it up in the air- with a knowing glance, almost like a wink, at the camera. The mob stops, frightened. What is it? A grenade? A knife? The Phantom laughs, and opens his hand to reveal- nothing at all! The mob resumes their attack, and pushes him into the river, where he sinks and drowns, and the film ends. It may not be what I'd prefer, but it's still an awesome ending.

One quick note: To enjoy Phantom much at all, you're going to need to remember a few things. First: You must watch this movie at the speed it was originally projected, 16 frames per second. Yes, it does look a little silly, but if you watch it at the 24 FPS speed that you would normally be accustomed to in a movie, it moves more slowly than a snail travelling underwater! This is the speed at which the YouTube copy plays; it does work fine at some points, but other times, everything takes forever. Second: be sure that there is music playing that fits the film! Again, the YouTube copy botches this, playing pretty harp music or tender string ballads during all the really tense parts.

The Phantom of the Opera is basically made by Lon Chaney's performance. Without him, the film would just be good. But with him, it's incredible.

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome