"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.

"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!

"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

"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

"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

"ParaNorman" Review

From the very first frame of ParaNorman, I knew I was going to love it. The big fancy clip that AMC Theaters plays in front of every movie quite suddenly cuts away, and is replaced with an old-looking, grainy, Fullscreen "Feature Presentation" logo- not unlike something that would play in front of one of the many classic zombie movies that ParaNorman apes. From that point on, the rest of the movie didn't disappoint, either.

Young Norman Babcock is a boy with a mysterious ability: he can see, and talk to, ghosts. And there are a lot of them in his hometown of Blithe Hollow, a rather obvious send-up of Salem, Massachusetts- for, exactly 300 years ago, Blithe Hollow's citizens executed a witch for questionable reasons, and the town has been banking on the tourist-attracting tale ever since.

But that old story is more than it seems, as Norman learns one day, when he encounters his creepy uncle, Mr. Penderghast, who can also see ghosts. According to Penderghast, the witch laid a curse on the town on the night she died, and every single year since, someone must read from a book at her gravesite before the sun sets- or else her curse will raise the dead. Penderghast has been taking on this task for many years prior, but unfortunately, he dies that very day- and Norman is confused by his instructions, and fails to reach the grave on time. Thus, the seven citizens who killed the witch so many years ago have returned as zombies, and Norman - alongside his sister Courtney, his friend Neil, Neil's brother Mitch, and the school bully, Alvin - must find a way to stop them, before they tear the town to shreds.

ParaNorman, reportedly, started life as a concept for a Disney movie, way back in the 1980s. If this story is true, then the long wait for the film's completion has been worth it. The story is made mostly out of clichés, but that's not a bad thing- the corny silliness is part of the fun, and they are used wisely, enhancing the plot in necessary, and often very moving, ways. You may be surprised at what you find when you see ParaNorman; it's more than the basic adventure movie that the commercials all say it is.

This is Laika Animation's second feature film, after 2009's Coraline. The two films have much in common: a horror-based setting, outcast heroes, uncommonly dark themes for an animated film, and a clever sense of humor that balances out the scary bits. But beyond plot elements, there is one other thing that the two share: incredibly breathtaking stop-motion animation. Anyone who's familiar with animation will be astonished at some of the effects that ParaNorman pulls off. Most of the film is set outside- an extremely difficult location to depict in a medium where characters exist in very small space. There's a large number of shots where the camera moves around in some crazy angles, which would require one hell of a steady camera and extremely careful animation, since one false move from either could ruin the whole shot.

One brief moment, in particular, stood out to me: Norman's overly-enthusiastic drama teacher is trying to encourage the kids to get more excited about the play they're putting on, and as she gives amusingly over-the-top advice, the camera focuses on her, and there's a shot that pans downward, starting at an overhead view of her body, and finishing at a ground-level shot of the same. It's a simple little thing, but it was quite impressive, as it couldn't have been easy to stay focused on a close-up of a single, relatively small (in real life) object. of Hopefully, ParaNorman will be as big a success as Coraline was, and Laika can continue to wow us with their stop-mo mastery.

Of course, no amount of technology in the world can turn a bad story into a good one (don't quote me on that; that's Pixar's motto), but don't worry- ParaNorman is no slouch there either. It doesn't waste time on unnecessary characters or dumb, pointless moments, a trap that another recent cartoon, The Lorax, fell into. The cast is small and simple, and they're all great characters who develop in natural ways. Norman learns to accept his gifts, and that not all people are inherently bad; Courtney learns that she should love and appreciate her family; the people of Blithe Hollow learn to accept and respect people who are different; and Neil doesn't learn much at all, because he's already an endlessly lovable little goofball, who's probably one of the film's highlights- young actor Tucker Albrizzi gives a great performance.

In fact, the entire voice cast is good. It's refreshingly free of the excessively all-star that so many high-profile cartoons resort to; probably the biggest names in the film are Casey Affleck as Mitch and John Goodman as the supporting role of Penderghast, and most of the other cast members are either largely unknown or, at best, C-listers. I find it rather funny that Christopher Mintz-Plasse, best known as "McLovin" from Superbad, is the voice of Alvin, a big, dumb, brutish bully- quite unlike his own geeky self.

Everyone? Go see ParaNorman. It's funny, scary, exciting, heartwarming... everything anyone could want in a movie. And besides, what other movies are there to see in the middle of August?

Awesome

"Lost in Translation" Review

Not every movie has to have a real plot structure, with a beginning, middle, and end. Sometimes, all you need is an interesting setup, likable characters, and an excuse to follow them around. Sofia Coppola went this route with Lost in Translation, and the characters are all that she needed to tell a fantastic story that's really hardly a story at all.

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a Hollywood actor that's fallen out of the limelight, who has come to Tokyo, Japan to film a series of whiskey commercials. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is the wife of a photographer, who's also travelled to Tokyo. Both feel confused and lost in the alien Japanese culture, and are bored and unsatisfied in their marriages, and by chance, they meet up one day. The rest of the film follows their developing, and increasingly close, relationship.

Not much happens in Lost in Translation, but nothing really needs to. The characters wander around, baffled by the often-incomprehensible culture they are surrounded by- as does the audience. Viewers who speak Japanese are, interestingly, more likely to take away less from this film than those who do not. One memorable scene is the point where Bob is filming one of the advertisements, and the director enthusiastically gives long-winded instructions in Japanese. But when his interpreter (who clearly barely speaks English herself) tries to translate his instructions for Bob, all she can tell him is "he wants you to turn around and look at the camera, okay?"

I wouldn't go as far to say that this is a comedy film, even though it is very funny at times and it stars the beloved comedian, Bill Murray. The humor always has a sense of bitterness, it's always dry, and is always overshadowed by the unhappiness of the characters. Even as Bob and Charlotte grow closer together, and share more of their lives with each other, both still seem lonely and distant, and never really grow comfortable with themselves. Lost in Translation is funny, but the laughs are very, very sad.

It's rather impressive that Sofia Coppola would turn out to be such a great director, given that prior to her shift to behind the camera, she was best known for her wretched performance in The Godfather Part III, where her horribly stilted, awkward performance nearly ruined an otherwise stellar film. Those who can't do, teach, I guess. Or perhaps it's just the great-director genes of her dad, Francis Ford Coppola, rubbing off on her.

It helps that Coppola has two great actors to work with. Murray needs no introduction, and Johansson's turn as Charlotte helped lead her to a great career. They may be different roles, but Bob and Charlotte feel almost like the same character: snarky, sad, lonely, distant, and confused. Murray, especially, is perfect in the role of a former star who fell on hard times and had to turn to insignificant, lousy, yet well-paying jobs. Wonder where he got the inspiration?

There are other actors in the film, obviously, and they're all good too, but they're just background dressing. Excuses to bring Charlotte and Bob together again. The two lead characters are the only real characters.

And a movie like this doesn't need any more.

Awesome

"The Avengers" Review

Superhero worlds are far larger in their comic books of origin than in the film adaptations of them. In the DC "Universe", Batman
Is not alone- he can call upon Superman, Wonder Woman, or the Flash for assistance if he needs to. Spider-man is close china with the Human Torch, Superman and Aquaman team up every other week, and the Hulk loves sparring with Wolverine.

For the most part, movie studios have shied away from those aspects of the mythology, believing them to be too complicated... Until now. The epic Marvel crossover that's been 5 years in the making is at last upon us, and guess what? It's amazing!

The evil god Loki, fresh from his defeat in last year's Thor, is back. This time, he's harnessed the power of a mystical force called the Tesseract to summon an army of aliens, which he'll use to conquer Earth. It'll take more than one hero to stop him, so Nick Fury, leader of the secret agency called SHIELD, calls upon Earth's Mightiest: Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, the Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye- the Avengers.

The Avengers was helmed by nerd icon Joss Whedon, and his signature style is all over the film. Bizarre slang abounds- the Hulk is at one point referred to as a "green-skinned rage monster"- and Whedon, as usual, relishes in the interpersonal conflicts between each of the Avengers. In his words, "The Avengers don't belong in the same movie together, let alone the same room"- and with the way they endlessly bicker with each other, it's easy to see why.

It's impossible to acclaim just one member of the cast because they are universally fantastic. The Avengers are Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), Chris Evans (Captain America), Scarlet Johansson (Black Widow), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), and Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), and they feel like both real individuals and a real team, and are heroes everyone wants to root for. The standout, If there could be any, would have to be Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. I'd elaborate, but it's Sam Jackson- what more do you need to know?

The Avengers will stand as one of the best superhero movies of all time. The action is just as good as the drama, and vice versa. There is absolutely no reason not to go see it- 1 Billion dollar's worth of people can't be wrong, can they?

Awesome

"Mean Creek" Review

We've all been bullied at one point in our lives. Didn't that make you feel really angry? Wouldn't it feel great to get back at that awful jerk? Yeah! Surely you loved to imagine humiliating the soulless freak, hurting them so badly they'd never even THINK of touching you ever again! Wouldn't that be great?

Well, in your head, it is. But if you ever went over the edge and tried to do it for real, you'd likely end up getting something very different than what you expected- and often something less than joyous.

Sam, a young boy in middle school, has just been beaten senseless by George, the widely-disliked school bully. When Sam tell his older brother about it, the two and a few friends formulate a scheme to he back at George: take a boat out to a local creek, then force him to strip and walk home naked.

Yet, once they're already out in the woods, Sam discovers something: George isn't really that bad. He clearly has some sort of social disorder, and just wants to be accepted. But it's too late to back out now- and the so-called prank ends in a far more horrible fashion than anyone could have expected.

The child actors of Mean Creek are uniformly fantastic. Sam, the lead, is played by Rory Culkin, Macaulay's younger brother- is it in the blood? The standout of the entire cast of standouts would have to be Josh Peck, who plays the bully, George. Peck, previously known for his lighthearted roles in Nickelodeon's The Amanda Show and Drake and Josh (the latter of which was still airing at the time of Mean Creek's release), initially plays George as a fairly similar character to his usual typecasting: a shy, awkward kid. But when George discovers, suddenly Peck becomes a frightening, raging terror, screaming in anger at his would-be pranksters, in a rage that leads to his demise.

The fate of George should not be too difficult to discern to those who have not yet seen the film, since the marketing materials give you all the clues you need, but that doesn't make Mean Creek any less shocking or disturbing. We'd all like to get back at our bullies- but if we ever actually tried, it's unlikely things would turn out as well as they do in our daydreams.

Awesome

"The Dark Knight Rises" Review

The Dark Knight seemed like the sort of lightning that could never strike twice. An incredible film that came around at just the right time, bringing the already-popular superhero genre to remarkable new heights, and shocking the world with its complexity and intrigue. We were all excited for the sequel, of course, yet at the same time, we knew it could never measure up to the quality of its predecessor- it would surely be doomed to suffer the superhero trilogy curse: where the first is good, the second is great, and the third is disappointingly decent (or worse).

So: does The Dark Knight Rises fall into that trap?

Amazingly... no.

In Gotham City, the now-legendary Batman has been gone for eight years. The public has been told that he murdered seven people, including Gotham's beloved district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and mysteriously disappeared. In truth, Dent killed those people, and inadvertently himself- Batman was only a patsy, to protect Dent's reputation.

During the intervening years, Batman's true identity, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), has become a recluse, rarely venturing outside his home, and suffering from several lingering wounds that he suffered during his superhero years. Wayne remains depressed and alone, much to the chagrin of his butler Alfred (Michael Caine), and his company, Wayne Enterprises - now run by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) - is teetering on the brink of collapse. But a new threat has arrived in Gotham City: a feared, super-strong terrorist by the name of Bane (Tom Hardy), who runs a large league of dangerous criminals. Bane aims to take over Gotham and destroy it, and the police force, led by Commissioner James Gordon (Gary Oldman), can't stop him on their own. Batman must come back, and take his rightful place in the public eye as the city's savior.

The Dark Knight Rises is a sequel, and doesn't let you forget it- the entire plot of the film hinges on events from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and woe to anyone who hasn't already seen both. Yet, at the same time, it feels remarkably different in tone, particularly to its immediate predecessor- though Knight did carry a message of heroism and positive symbols, it still had remarkably cruel, depressing villains, an unsettling atmosphere, an ending where the hero winds up a wanted fugitive, and a very dark tone- literally: the entire movie had a visible blue tint added to it.

Rises, by contrast, is considerably more hopeful, as we watch a man 'rise' (wink wink) from the depths of despair and pain to return to the heroic life he was meant for. The villain, Bane, is scary, but is also upbeat in personality, funny in a sarcastic way - a bit more so, ironically enough, than the previous film's Joker, and a bit more sympathetic (by which I mean he is sympathetic). Batman also finally gains a credible romantic interest in Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a wily cat burglar who we know better as Catwoman. Bat and Cat engage in frequent playful banter throughout the film, and it's a great joy to behold.

Hathaway, incidentally, is easily the best part of the film. Selina is a trickster if there ever was one, and is prone to playing dumb, weak, or useless in order to get what she wants. Hathaway is so natural at switching emotions at the drop of a hat that the audience never fully trusts the character, because we have no way of telling if she's ever being serious, or bluffing. It helps that her real personality is a snarky, lovable hardass- in one scene, as she's being escorted into a prison cell, a fellow inmate creepily hits on her, reaching out his arms. Selina quips, "oh, you want to hold my hand?" and gives them a good, painful twist. Mm-HM!

There are no less than eight Oscar nominees onscreen in The Dark Knight Rises, and the entire cast performs as fantastically as you would expect from such a talented bunch. Rises primarily focuses on several newly-introduced characters, such as Selina, Bane, police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), & Wayne executive Miranda Tate (Mario Cotillard), and their own relations with Batman and/or Bruce Wayne. These characters are all interesting, in particular Blake and Tate (both original creations, never seen in the comics...), but their focus, unfortunately, comes at the expense of prior characters. Alfred and Lucius Fox, majorly important in the past two movies, are now reduced to supporting roles, as is Commissioner Gordon, who is injured and put in a hospital bed early on, and he remains there until the climax. Most damning of all is the character of Jonathan Crane, who was the major villain in Batman Begins, yet appears for a few mere moments in this film- to the point where his identity as The Scarecrow, an iconic Batman villain, is never even brought up!

Action sequences were somewhat lacking in Christopher Nolan's other Batman movies. Batman Begins' shoddy cinematography made the combat hard to understand, and while The Dark Knight had some amazing moments - such as that famous shot where an entire truck is flipped over - the action was in rather short supply for a superhero movie. But fret no more, my friends- Rises delivers the action and it delivers lots of it, while still leaving plenty of time for character development. There's chase scenes, hand-to-hand fights, Batman fighting armies of dim mooks, and a climax to die for. Batman's famous vehicle, the Batplane, finally makes an appearance in Nolan's series (here it's just "the Bat"), and it's as cool and high-tech as any Bat-gadget should be.

So. Is The Dark Knight Rises better than The Dark Knight? Well, that's a very big debate to be had. My opinion is that yes, it is- the action is more exciting, the characters are more interesting, and, as the final part of a trilogy, the ending is quite a bit more satisfying. But, at the same time, the film is very different from its predecessor, and there were many things that that film did, that this one doesn't do at all. It's all a matter of opinion, and I imagine that this will become a hot topic in the nerd community for many years to come.

But I do think there's one thing we can agree on: The Dark Knight Rises is really, really good.

Awesome

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" Review

There are two types of science fiction: one where the futuristic elements are overt and obvious, and the kind where the world is our own, save for one small change.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind falls into the latter category.

The future element in question is Lacuna, Inc., a service that has the ability to selectively erase memories. Clementine (Kate Winslet) has impulsively used the service to remove her memories of her boyfriend, Joel (Jim Carrey), after a nasty argument. Upon hearing the news, Joel decides to use the service himself to remove his own memories of Clementine- only to realize, once the procedure is already underway, that he wants to remember her after all.

Spotless Mind is a very visual film, as is characteristic of director Michel Gondry. Certain colors help denote when the film is currently set (the non-linear narrative would likely get confusing otherwise); other colors define the mood of the scene; and as Joel's memories disappear, the world appears to dissolve in various unsettling ways- all to great effect.

The central relationship between Joel and Clementine is crucial to the plot, and Winslet & Carrey are perfect for it. As we watch them meet, and go through their good and bad times, they both have moments where they gain or lose the audience's sympathy- but they never stop being understandable or relatable. And, for what it's worth, Winslet does a great American accent.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a complex movie, difficult to describe in a single review, and definitely encourages repeat viewings. It's far from inaccessible, though- you should definitely check it out.

Awesome

"Bridesmaids" Review

Why are there so few female-driven comedies out there these days? Women can be just as funny as men, and sometimes even funnier- as proven in the hysterical Bridesmaids.


Poor Annie is going through some hard times. Her bakery's been shut down, her roommates are irritating and inept, she's forced to work a low-paying job at a jewelry store, and her only sex life to speak of is with a disrespectful jerk named Ted. Needless to say, she's a little jealous when her best friend Lillian announces that she's engaged, but is quite flattered when Lillian asks her to be her maid of honor. Annie wants to do a good job at organizing the festivities, but she's seemingly blocked at every turn by Lillian's new friend, Helen- friendly, wealthy, polite... seemingly perfect in every way.


Lest you think for a minute that Bridesmaids is "frilly" or "girly" thanks to its premise, well, think again. Bridesmaids is dirtier than dirty dirt, and flaunts it- a scene where the girls all get food poisoning and suffer for it while wearing gowns is uproarious in its raunchiness. There's room for more tender stuff, like a cute romantic subplot and a nice, genuine moral, but this is definitely no "chick flick".

A comedy is all in the casting, and Bridesmaids has a fantastic cast. Annie, played by Kristen Wiig (also co-writer), is adorably awkward and nervous, and is as relatable as she is funny. Helen, played by Rose Byrne, is recognizable as the villain, yet still has enough decent qualities to be sympathetic. And, as many others have noted, the absolute standout of the film is Melissa McCarthy as Megan- crass, rude, and utterly hilarious, she steals every scene she's in. McCarthy was justly nominated for a full-blown Oscar for her role.

Dirty, crowd-pleasing, lovable, and sometimes surprisingly poignant, Bridesmaids is one riot of a movie.

Awesome

"The Hunger Games" Review

On the long list of "things that you would not want to happen to your child", forced fights to the death is probably up near the top. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the majority of the citizens of the distant-future country of Panem face in The Hunger Games.

The titular games round up 24 teenaged "tributes", one boy and one girl from each of Panem's 12 districts, and send them to an Arena, where they use both their own skills and a set of tools given to them to kill each other until one remains. All of this is televised to an eager audience in Panem's Capitol, and a less-than-eager audience in the 12 districts. Once the winner is crowned, they're sent back to their home district and the process repeats itself the next year.

For the 74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen has volunteered to be her own district's tribute, as the originally selected tribute was her own sister, Prim. Katniss is a talented hunter, but she lacks people skills - skills vital to winning the Games, since the viewers in the Capitol can donate gifts to tributes that they like - and needs help if she wants to win. She gets it in the form of her District 12 companion, Peeta (who claims to have a crush on her- and the viewers love it!), and a young girl named Rue, who reminds Katniss of Prim. But what will the costs and benefits be if she wins the Games? And what will come next?

There were a dozen ways that The Hunger Games could have turned out badly, as Suzanne Collins' 2008 novel, with its first-person present narrative style and complex social commentary, is quite a difficult story to adapt. But director Gary Ross has pulled it off very nicely- in fact, it's just a few flaws shy of being a perfect film.

I applaud the casting director for The Hunger Games. There's not a single actor that doesn't fit their roles to a T. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic as Katniss, bringing a fabulous depth and relatable characteristics to a character that is very hard to relate to, and Josh Hutcherson, as Peeta, is quite possibly the best actor in the entire movie: when he is chosen as tribute at the beginning of the film, the crushing sadness, horror, and fear on his face looks entirely genuine, and he's just as real in nearly every other scene. The supporting cast is all great, too. The veteran Donald Sutherland is an intimidating, cold presence as President Snow; the "career" tributes (tributes that have been training all their lives for the Games) are the perfect blend of nasty, violent, and yet strangely likable in their way; Woody Harrelson provides both minor comic relief and an important mentor figure for the heroes as the drunken Haymitch; and Amandla Stenberg has a standout performance as Rue. Stenberg is, simply put, the most adorable little bag of cutesy-cute that has ever been recorded on celluloid, and I almost refuse to believe that she's 13 years old, because she looks like she is half that age.

The screenplay, co-written by Ross, Collins, and Billy Ray, has great dialogue and clearly knows its characters, but it suffers from some pacing problems. The Hunger Games is a chunky 142 minutes long, and yet it still feels a bit rushed. There isn't enough of Katniss' home life, or her interaction with Prim and her best friend, Gale (who'll be very important in the sequels); after a brisk scene of her doing a little hunting, it's straight to the tribute selection. Katniss doesn't spend enough time with Rue, either, making their supposed close friendship seem oddly forced. One could make the argument that such additions could make the film too long, but I say that, as long as the story is as interesting as possible, a film can be as long as it wants and the audience won't mind.

The other major issue with The Hunger Games is the cinematography. This film has, in all honesty, some of the worst cinematography I have ever seen. The camera zips around, zooms in too close, stumbles about, and utterly disorients the viewer- my sister threw up, and I felt very queasy myself. The worst part is, it's not just annoying, it actually detracts from the film: the overuse of shaky-cam makes it difficult to understand what's going on in the action sequences.

It's telling, then, that a film with such major problems still manages to be so great. This is probably one of the best films I have seen all year, at least so far. The acting, writing, and overall look of The Hunger Games is top-tier, and this is definitely not one to be missed.

Awesome

"The Secret World of Arrietty" Review

They've done it again!

Studio Ghibli needs no introduction by this point. The films of Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, and their protege are some of the most acclaimed animated films of their time. The films are filled with stunning originality and ingenious fantasy of their own design- but for the first film of director Hiromasa Yonebayashi, Ghibli decided to go an alternate route and adapt an existing tale: the classic children's novel The Borrowers.

Arrietty is a tiny girl living under the floorboards of a modern Japanese house, along with her parents, Homily and Pod. Arrietty is a Borrower, a little humanoid creature that takes small, easy-to-miss objects from the big, bad human world in order to survive. Unfortunately, on the night of her very first Borrowing, Arrietty makes a fatal mistake: she's seen by Sho, an ill 12-year-old boy who is staying in the house that the Borrowers take from.

Arrietty's parents insist that, now that they have been seen, they have to move out of their home and find another. Defiantly, Arrietty begins to communicate with Sho and the other humans, and manages to strike up a friendship.

Arrietty does have a plot, with a beginning, middle and end, but it's quite remarkable how calm and easygoing the ride is. There's no hurry to get along to the next plot point, and really, it's quite a simple story in the first place. The film is mostly content with showing off its lovable characters and breathtaking animation (par for the course for Ghibli), which isn't a bad thing at all.

Arrietty has some of the most lovable characters I've seen in any film for a long time now. Arrietty herself is an adorable little thing, from her voice to her personality to her mannerisms, and it's impossible not to utterly fall in love with her. Homily and Pod are polar opposites- Homily being panicky and loud, Pod reserved and stoic- but each are well-developed in their own right, and their love for one another shows loud and clear on screen. Sho is a quietly tragic character; he has a bad heart condition, and though he will soon go into surgery, he is quite confident that he will die. You really pity and sympathize with the poor boy's plight.

I have yet to see the original Japanese version of the film, so I can't comment on that version's voice cast, but the English dub is mostly excellent. Voice actors include Amy Poehler (Homily), Will Arnett (Pod), Carol Burnett (Haru, the housekeeper), Davide Henrie (Sho), and Bridgit Mendler (Arrietty). All fit the characters quite nicely, and deliver their lines with lots of emotion and dramatic flair.

Did I already mention that the animation is beautiful? Yes? Well, I'll say it again. The animation is beautiful. The world of the Borrowers is filled with intricate detail, from a wide variety of animals to highly detailed plants and raindrops, all rendered solely with human hands. There is not a single dull frame in the entire film.

The Secret World of Arrietty isn't Ghibli's best work, but considering that they've yet to release a film that could even be called "mediocre", that's faint damnation indeed. It's still a brilliant film, and Yonebayashi (who's expected to take over the studio from Miyazaki and Takahata) is more than capable of directing dozens more.

Awesome

"Kiki's Delivery Service" Review

Have I mentioned before that I love Studio Ghibli? Because I love it to death. Their films consistently dazzle myself and millions of others around the world, and brings out the inner cold in all of us.

Kiki's Delivery Service, a relatively early film in the studio's history (but certainly not early in the career of director Hayao Miyazaki, already an animation master by 1989), centers around Kiki, a young witch-in-training who travels to a European city to live on he own for a year. While there, she makes new friends, gets a job as a delivery girl (using her ability to fly with a broomstick to make her trips), and embarks on a personal journey of self-discovery, with her friend Jiji the cat by her side.

Like most of Ghibli's works, Kiki moves at a slow pace and has little in the way of a major plot arc. Most of the film is just a collection of events in Kiki's life, up until around the film'a conclusion, where she begins to lose her witch's powers and must discover why. Also like most of Ghibli's works, the film would not be nearly as good if it moved any faster. It's soul is its simple looks at Kiki's life, and Kiki is such a wonderful, three-dimensional character that watching her is all the audience wants. She's full of energy and optimism, is always willing to help, and is immediately polite to all- except, of course, for that cute boy Tombo, who she treats with hostility because he's "rude". Along for the ride is Jiji, the wisecracking cat, who is voiced by Phil Hartman in the English version. Jiji is snarky, lazy, and snooty- a typical cat- and is incredibly amusing no matter which version you watch.

Speaking of which: Kiki's Delivery Service has an interesting history in regards to its English dub. The first dub was produced in 1990 by a company called Streamline Pictures, but it was only shown in Japan Airlines' international flights, and is very difficult to come by. Walt Disney Pictures created their own dub in 1998, starring an all-star voice cast including Kirsten Dunst as Kiki and the aforementioned Hartman. This dub also featured lots of added dialogue and music that was not in the original Japanese release, replaced the Japanese-language songs at the beginning and end with English ones, and very subtly altered the ending. Perhaps bowing to pressure from fans of the original, Disney's 2010 re-release removed all of the added sounds and reverted the two songs to the Japanese originals. In my opinion, the Japanese and 1998 English versions are both superior to the 2010 English version: the latter may be more accurate to the former, but the cuts made to the recordings are quite clear at some points, and unnecessary they may have been, but the changes added interesting elements to the film- such as Phil Hartman's amusing ad-libbed, dialogue, almost all of which was removed in the re-release. Most puzzling is the removal of the two English songs, which were both perfectly serviceable and easily stand as equals with the Japanese ones. And after all, it's an English dub, so why not have English songs?

Of course, if you want the authentic experience you could just watch the Japanese version.

Regardless of the version you watch, Kiki's Delivery Service is a nearly-flawless joy. It's good for all ages, so don't pass up the opportunity to show this to your kids- they'll love it just as much.

Awesome