neji107 Reviews

The Muppets (2011)

The Greatest Possible Addition, and Tribute, to the Series

[9/10 · 20 November 2011]

The Muppets may quite possibly be one of the best movies of 2011. I don't just mean that as a fan. The Muppets had everything spot on – it was clever, entertaining, adorable, heartwarming, and absolutely hilarious. The magical thing though is that The Muppets pleases everybody -- average moviegoers and Muppet purists alike, and that I believe is its greatest triumph. On one side is a modern comedy, chock full of hysterical celebrity cameos and pop culture references. And on the other side is a nostalgic throwback to the Muppets era. Those who remember the old series will unquestionably find delight in seeing their favorite puppets reunite for another big show, literally.

Funnily enough, the movie treats the Muppet characters as if they were real life actors, with The Muppets shows and movies being their past careers. The Muppets haven't seen any action in years (a fact also true in real life), and each muppet has taken his/her own path in life with varying degrees of success. When crisis arises, the old troupe is forced to find each other and give it another go.

It is all weaved through a fascinating metanarrative that begs the question, what happens to the Muppets when they aren't The Muppets? After all this time away, can The Muppets make a comeback through a reunion and relive their former glory days? – a question ultimately answered by the movie itself.

The film opens with a common puppet named Walter, whose childhood consists of watching The Muppets and dreaming of joining them. His older brother Gary (Jason Segel) extends the invitation to come with him and his girlfriend of 10 years Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles so that he can visit the Muppet studio. Much to his disappointment, the Muppet theater is abandoned and Walter even overhears an oil tycoon's (Chris Cooper) plot to tear down the place. Walter and Gary quickly seek out Kermit the Frog to reunite the Muppet crew and remedy the situation, but all the while Mary is upset that the turn of events is ruining her 10 year anniversary with Gary.

As you can imagine from the premise alone, the movie is a tribute to the Muppets in every sense. It travels respectfully through the old Muppet history, and relives it instead of trying to replace it. In fact, seeing how each one branched off from the group like members of an old band and "grew up" gave, I would say, substantially more character to each Muppet than they ever had before. I think fans will agree that this is the best possible way the muppets could have returned.

Simply put, I can't imagine anyone with a heart not enjoying this film. There's something in it for everybody, especially if you're in the mood for laughter and catchy musical numbers. The creative humor was a breath of fresh air. There is plenty breaking of the fourth wall and oh so much of that lovely deadpan irony and absurdist humor, reminiscent of old comedies like Airplane! The audience in the theater was cracking up almost every other moment, myself included. And while humor is its strong suit, the movie is also an incredibly heartwarming tale of friends that go their separate ways but are still connected through their hearts. Moviegoers and Muppet fans alike, go see this movie!

9/10

The Thing (I) (2011)

Impressive by Hollywood standards, but can't sustain the same classic suspense as the original

[7/10 · 13 October 2011]

What really made John Carpenter's The Thing so magical was not its sci- fi elements, its alien movie aspects or even, I daresay, its splendid 1980s animatronic gore. It was the psychological tension! The issue of trust was a horrifying prospect: Who can you trust? Are you who you say you are? How can I tell what you say is the truth? At any moment, someone could be an alien waiting for the opportune moment to burst out and consume the vulnerable person. As a prequel to John Carpenter's work, The Thing (2011) taps respectfully into this raw suspense from the start, but towards the end loses its direction and falls victim to the Hollywood clichés of a typical alien monster film.

The Thing prequel (for simplicity I'll call the 1982 film "John Carpenter's") covers what happened in the Norwegian base. Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited cautiously by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to aid in an Antarctic dig of a great scientific discovery: an alien specimen found frozen in the ice near its ship. With the help of Norwegian scientists, they recover the body to the safety of the base, but soon learn that it is still alive… and has the ability to assume the shape of that which it kills.

The first half of the story follows how John Carpenter's film goes down almost exactly. (I won't say anything about how it fares against 1951 The Thing from Another World… because I haven't seen it.) After the alien has proved to infect several humans already, extreme paranoia and distrust breaks out among the surviving crew. Kate quickly assumes the Kurt Russell-type leader, herding the survivors into open areas and investigating methods of exposing the monster. Tensions run extremely high, as they did in John Carpenter's, and at these moments I felt The Thing prequel had a good thing going for it. The suspense was thrilling and engaging, and aliens were bursting out of bodies at wholly unexpected times. The acting was consistently solid; Winstead did her part well, and the use of authentic Scandinavian actors was an added bonus. Within thirty minutes the film had paid enough homage to the original to be a worthy predecessor – more than I expected it to do in the first place -- but then it decided to take its own stylistic turn, which most would consider to be fine but Carpenter fans not so much.

First, the age of animatronics is over. It's realistic to expect the effects in every Hollywood movie these days to rely on CGI, The Thing (2011) being no exception. So while it lacked that creepy gooey tangible feel of John Carpenter's animatronics, The Thing prequel had plenty of fast- paced alien sequences while still looking fairly good. The monster design stays pretty faithful, including wiry tentacles and frighteningly random mouths. Of course at this point though, these kind of CGI effects are nothing we haven't seen before; many times it seemed to be a zombie-type monster rather than Carpenter's amorphous alien, and in that sense was a bit unbelievable.

Second, the movie switched tone halfway from primarily a psychological thriller to an alien, sci-fi flick. Whilst in Carpenter's film the alien tended only to burst out into its true form necessarily when discovered, in The Thing prequel it is glorified with an ungodly amount of screen time. The film quickly loses its intensity as it dwindles away into an ordinary monster chase around the Norwegian base.

By measures of any typical Hollywood monster horror film, The Thing is still an engaging and impressive ride. But trying to continue in the same spirit as John Carpenter's, the film fails to sustain the classic psychological suspense it starts out with. 7.5/10

Warrior (2011)

Emotions on par with The Fighter, one of the top combat sport movies since Rocky, one of the best of 2011

[9/10 · 31 July 2011]

Every so often you'll come across a combat sport movie that manages to find just the right balance of drama and action – that is, more drama than action. When fights are justified with backstories full of crushing emotion, they become all the more intense and gratifying.

Warrior brings to the table the world of mixed martial arts, where punches, kicks, holds, and everything else goes. The inception of new international tournament "Sparta" puts on a collision course Paddy (Nick Nolte), Brendan (Joel Edgerton), and Tom Conlon (Tom Hardy), all part of an estranged family torn apart in the past by abuse, favoritism, and abandonment. Tom resurfaces in society to enlist the help of his formerly alcoholic father Paddy to train him for the tournament, while at the same time Brendan revisits his UFC training in hopes to win the $5 million purse for his struggling family. The two underdogs face some of the toughest MMA fighters on the planet, but the true struggle appears to lie within them. Paddy battles for forgiveness against the resentment of his sons, Tom fights to prove to himself that he is strong, and Brendan struggles to come to terms with his older family while trying to support one of his own.

The fantastic thing here is two protagonists entering the same tournament. Each brother has his own respectable reasons for fighting, a fact that is sure to divide the audience when it comes time to choose which one to root for. The story truly is gut-wrenchingly powerful and presented in an engaging fashion. Little by little through the film's dialogue, we are allowed a glimpse into the past hardships of the Conlon family, and the characters' motivations for retaining such hatred are revealed gradually. Through the incredible acting talents of Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, and Nick Nolte, this confused and passionate chemistry really comes alive. All three actors put up some of the most convincing and heartbreaking performances of their careers; and seeing as how The Fighter garnered so many Oscar nominations, I can't see why Warrior will not do the same. My only beef with the movie is its clichéd climax and rather bleak inconclusive ending, though it still does good to the emotional schism the movie intended to create.

Warrior is one of those sports films with a magical mixture of emotional and physical battle. It's a wonderful story showing how sometimes the world's strongest forces are insignificant in comparison to the troubles of a scarred family. Warrior is without a doubt worth a visit to the theater. One of the best of 2011! And whether you're an MMA fan or not, the adrenaline-pumping fights will have you up and cheering and applauding.

9/10

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

At its core is a silly premise, but the presentation is phenomenal

[7/10 · 29 July 2011]

The Verdict

---------------

As summer 2011 comes to a close Cowboys & Aliens stands alone as the last blockbuster of the season. If you were somehow unable to glean from its title, C&A strives to blend the best elements of both the Western and Sci-fi genres while trying to maintain a serious tone through it all. Expect as much surprise in the plot department as when you saw the "& Aliens" next to "Cowboys" in the title of the movie; the plot is sadly dull and predictable and limps along with the fast-paced action hoping to throw out some redeeming twists and turns, but nothing heals a fractured story once it's out there. Nonetheless, I can't say I didn't enjoy the movie! It was an entertaining and ridiculously action-packed ride that successfully relied on the meeting point between Sci-fi and Western to keep things interesting. C&A is the most thrilling movie of the summer, and a worthy blockbuster to close out the season, but there's nothing in the script that will change your life.

The Rationale

-----------------

Aliens' first layover on their way to conquer the world is the American wild west, so they abduct the loved ones of everyone in sight, and in turn the lovers of the loved ones unite to track down the extraterrestrials and get them back. That's the entire story in one sentence. Was it a spoiler? No, but that does give you an idea of how one-dimensional the premise is. Cowboys & Aliens takes its name and core idea from an earlier graphic novel made in 2006. Director Jon Favreau argues all other content is original. The film does not claim to have made the ultimate cross-category combination but instead revels in the fact there are both aliens and cowboys, two all-time Hollywood staples, on the screen at the same time. So is C&A simply original, or originally simple? I'll have to take the latter route. C&A mushes together the old west and invaders from outer space, but does nothing spectacular beyond that. The only plot twist in the film is completely expected and is merely a spark from a dying fire. While flaws in the plot are a shame, the blend of the two genres is amazingly seamless. Favreau was absolutely right when he said western and sci-fi just nicely fit together when both are taken seriously. I thought the only possible way I would enjoy this film would require a massive suspension of disbelief on my part, but to my great delight the movie was mostly very fluid. Unfortunately I can't shake the comparison to this summer's earlier film Super 8, also a genre-bending movie of sorts. I can't deny that the sci-fi aspect of the film looked and behaved exactly as it would under JJ Abram's command; even the aliens look like the ungodly offspring of a beetle, crab, and the Super 8 monster. This is why I came to the conclusion that the Western half C&A was crafted much more solidly and carries the weight of the film.

Now if anyone can make an on screen battle of revolvers and laser- blasters happen, it's Olivia Wilde, Daniel Craig, and Harrison Ford as a team under Favreau's watchful eye. As a whole the acting is fine and the directing impressive – the blemishes come from elsewhere. Daniel Craig's character wakes up at the start of the film and suffers from amnesia, an interesting propellant right into the heart of the action and a way to keep things interesting. But his intermittent flashbacks develop his character so blandly that by the time he's ready to remember his identity, no one really cares. Everyone knows Ford is no stranger to the cowboy hat either, so here the script is to blame. Ford's character is supposed to have an inner struggle with who he is and how he acts from scene-to-scene… but rather, he flops back and forth so bluntly from sympathetic-but-aloof, noble warrior to cold-blooded killer that he appears to have a drastic case of bipolar disorder instead of a complex character. Everyone else, be it the adopted Indian tracker or the gang of trainrobbers or the gunslingin' preacher man, fall into their respective, heavily stereotypical Western roles. In some cases that would make a film mundane, however I think it adds some good strength to the Western part of C&A.

Where Cowboys & Aliens really shines is the action, and if you're intent on seeing it for any other reason then you are misled my friend. In keeping with his tradition of minimal CGI, Favreau crafts some of the most incredible explosive sequences of the summer. Where it is used, the CGI looks more than great and special effects will wow and amaze. C&A has arguably the best action of any movie this summer and, simply for that, warrants a trip to the theater.

The Smurfs (2011)

Not awful... but not good

[6/10 · 25 July 2011]

Thank goodness The Smurfs was not the god-awful trainwreck everyone made it out to be, or else I would have wasted thirty minutes in line to see another failed cartoon adaptation.

I won't say it's good, but it was surprisingly not bad. Of course, The Smurfs does not exactly have enough substance to hold a full-grown adult's attention for all of its 86 minutes, but it is a surefire hit with the kids. The linear and simple plot follows a small group of Smurfs that get accidentally sucked into a portal to the human world while trying to escape the evil wizard Gargamel (Hank Azaria). The little blue people quickly enlist the help of married couple Patrick (Neil Patrick Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) to protect them from Gargamel, who plans to harvest the Smurfs' essence for magical power, and to re-create a portal that only happens once in a blue moon…

The movie includes some emotional subplots with Papa Smurf and Patrick, who feels he is unready to start his own family; though it all becomes pretty unnecessary in the face of the Smurfs' main goal to return home. Humor, again, mainly appeals to the kids, sporting sight gag after sight gag, but every once in a while there's a clever reference thrown in for the older folks in the audience. Hank Azaria gives about the most cartoonish performance as any villain could, resulting in an upsetting mix of interest and annoyance. On the other hand, where it is used the CGI is incredibly high-quality (i.e. the Smurfs, Gargamel's cat, etc.), and the special effects are designed more specifically for 3-D viewing than in most movies as of late.

I know some people have proclaimed this film to be a bastardization of a childhood cartoon favorite, but I argue that it isn't. The film is very aware of its origins with Peyo and respects that fact. They actually pay direct homage to the creator towards the end of the story. An exact imitation of the cartoon series this movie is not, but it is a fun and well-intentioned take on the story.

The Smurfs is mildly entertaining, at its best, but it is written with the right spirit and is in no way an injustice against the original series. It offers a nostalgic throwback (with a modern twist) for the adults and an amusing show for the little ones. For the ones in between, I advise avoiding this movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

The Star of Summer 2011 Missed it By that Much

[7/10 · 21 July 2011]

By all accounts, Captain America: The First Avenger should have stolen the spotlight for all of 2011. The special effects consisted of easily the most impressive batch of explosions, gunfights, and fantastical vehicles so far this year. There were no complaints in the acting department: Chris Evans was born to play the Captain and was strongly supported on each side by the talents of Hayley Atwell as the gorgeous Peggy Carter and veteran actor Tommy Lee Jones as Colonel Phillips. And as well all know, Hugo Weaving, perfectly capable of delivering the most dreadful of villains, had his shot at the infamous Johann Schmidt (or Red Skull). Adopting one of the most classic American stories of our time, and across the fascinating historical backdrop of WWII, this film had all the elements perfectly aligned and was geared to set the bar for all superhero movies to come. Don't get me wrong, Captain America: The First Avenger was solid in almost every aspect and incredibly entertaining, but a groundbreaking superhero film it is not. What went wrong? Warning: Criticism and minor spoilers lie ahead!

Film adaptations of comic books are notorious in their development of the superhero. In many cases the film waits until its latter half before fully empowering protagonist, and the confrontations with the villain are squeezed into a rushed conclusion. Captain America actually reverses this timing decision, and Steve Rogers' transformation into the American hero is one of the first events that happens in the movie. But the remainder of the film STILL manages to feel miserably rushed. Superheroes are typically given a couple chances to gain a command over their powers; they practice, experiment, and sometimes even fail, but the hero is developed as a result of the learning process, not instantaneously established. Captain America is at fault here. The moment a relatively inexperienced Captain America decides to leap past enemy lines he immediately, and miraculously, becomes a human wrecking ball, knocking away everything in his path from Nazis to high-tech tanks. In fact, all of his 'missions' to destroy the enemy bases - except the first and last - are shown within one frustratingly short montage full only of Captain America glory shots. Montages can work, when timed correctly, but Captain America utterly fails to build up to this sequence - Steve Rogers is simply thrown into the fray... and wins. Another major miss can be attributed to the character of Johann Schmidt. In my humble personal opinion, a superhero movie can only be as good as its villain. Apparently the writers did not share my sentiments, because Hugo Weaving was awarded a criminally small amount of screen time. Weaving gave a good effort but was unfortunately not given much to work with. The most 'evil' the Red Skull gets is expressed through a couple angry snarls and intentional friendly fire during the action montage.

However, the most impacting flaw was the film's conclusion. I won't say exactly what the ending entails, but I will say it is frustratingly ironic. After a sudden and abrupt cut in the action, instead of wrapping up any of the romantic or historical plots of the movie - in fact, instead of wrapping up ANY part of the movie - it suddenly shifts to a drastically different setting in order to set up the future 'The Avengers' film. Whether or not The Avengers will take care of the loose ties remains to be seen. It seemed like a tragedy that the original story was not concluded at all to my satisfaction, but when I remembered the full title of the movie I chided myself for expecting anything different.

I left the theater feeling a bit divided over what my opinion of the film should be. On one hand it was an improved Marvel work that everyone seemed to enjoy, but on the other hand it betrayed my expectations for the 10-star superhero masterpiece I had imagined. In the end, I'll give the movie the benefit of the doubt; while it still has flaws, Captain America: The First Avenger may still come out on top of the Marvel pile.

8/10

The Change-Up (2011)

A raunchy comedy with flawed humor, but commendable acting

[4/10 · 19 July 2011]

Dave (Bateman) and Mitch (Reynolds) envy each other's lives. To Mitch, Dave leads a successful and contented life, working at a prestigious law firm and surrounded by a loving family. To Dave, Mitch is living the dream: a stress and commitment-free joyride full of drugs, booze, and strange new women. After the childhood friends reunite at a bar, they decide to pee into a fountain while simultaneously wishing for the other's life. Naturally, the act causes them to magically switch bodies the next morning. It then becomes a race against time to find the same fountain and reverse the effects before their respective lives are ruined for good. However, as the hunt continues, Dave and Mitch discover that even though the other's life is not as dreamy as they had initially imagined, seeing things from a new perspective reveals what they had overlooked in their own.

So after a drunken night, a couple of men wake up to a disaster and "proceed to freak the ---- out". Sound familiar? Yes, The Change-up features the same writers as from The Hangover, and like its spiritual predecessor, gleefully abuses its right to a hard R-rating. The movie jumps at every chance to spew out foul language and full frontal nudity. But around every corner comes the awful toilet humor. (Literally.) Without fail each joke is followed up by a string of curse words or disgusting crude humor. Clearly, The Change-Up relies heavily on shock value to produce some cheap laughs, but this is to be expected of The Hangover's creative minds. Unfortunately, what worked for The Hangover does not always work here. This kind of humor fit The Hangover perfectly simply because the movie had a persisting theme of ridiculousness and never took itself too seriously. On the other hand, in its latter half The Change-Up tends to lean toward its dramatic side and realizes too late that crude jokes have begun to feel out of place.

Even so, none of the comedic parts of this film would fly without the talent of its lead actors. The weight of the movie relies on Reynolds and Bateman's ability to portray "each other", and without drawing attention to the fact; they deliver quite nicely. The personality swap between professional lawyer and immature jock is seamless and remains successfully low-key for the duration of the film. Since the switched personalities represent the most interesting parts, though, the movie lags immensely in the beginning and end. Olivia Wilde and Leslie Mann are fine playing the tempting secretary/wife, but regrettably do not serve much more of a purpose in the movie after their clothes come off.

The Change-Up is a raunchy comedy that follows in the footsteps of the more worthy 'The Hangover'. Complete with wildly annoying infants, incidents involving diarrhea, and adventures in the 'lorn' industry, it is a shock-and-show roller-coaster. Entertaining, perhaps… but just be aware of what you're walking in to. 6/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)

A Magical End to an Incredible Saga

[7/10 · 12 July 2011]

I salute you, Potter fans. This moment has taken 10 years to find you, and now the wait is finally over. I can tell you the wait was worth it. Maybe you want to know exactly what happens to Voldemort in the movie or exactly how a battle specifically goes down, but spoilers for this movie (good or bad) are simply not worth knowing. Get in line and don't ruin the experience for yourself.

I know what your big (generic) questions are... Is Part 2 fantastically more epic than the previous films? Does it loyally mirror the book to the very last page? Has Daniel Radcliffe's acting improved? I know you definitely don't want to hear it, and I definitely don't want to say it, but the answer is No. If you have come this far after watching seven Harry Potter movies and still have no clue what to expect, then I don't know what to tell you. In whatever regard you held Part 1, you will probably think similarly of Part 2. They are made of the same quality,,, Unfortunately, that means I can guarantee there will be moments that cause you to shift uncomfortably in your seat and think to yourself, "That's not how it happened in the book"; you'll see chunks of the story removed for the sake of runtime; some parts, namely the romances, will feel rushed and awkward; what consisted of pages of dialogue in the book are awarded a single line in the movie; the smothering relationship with Hollywood style leads to silly fist fights and corny one-liners. Even the epilogue is quite laughable because someone in the costume department thought "19 years later" only meant "19 pies and a Big Mac later". Again, these are all defects you should have come to expect in the series...

But do not despair! I can also guarantee that after these fleeting mistakes pass, you will shrug your shoulders and realize that these are Harry's last days. The Deathly Hallows Part 2 is perhaps the only possible movie that, despite however unsatisfying some scenes might be, the film as a whole will leave you with a grand sense of fulfillment in your mind and with a feeling of nostalgic happiness tugging at your heartstrings. You will STILL be rooting for your favorite heroes, be wow-ed by excellent special effects, and squirm with delight at the sight of the long-awaited kiss. It is ultimately a bombastic conclusion befitting of one of the greatest literary and film series in history - No one can argue with that. Harry Potter's life on the screen may be over, but the boy who lived will continue to live in our hearts forever.

Zookeeper (2011)

Charm and impressive animal animation keeps afloat what could have been a disaster

[7/10 · 12 July 2011]

So maybe you hated Paul Blart: Mall Cop. Maybe you're sick of Kevin James in The King of Queens. Maybe you saw the trailer and thought, "Night at the Museum rip-off!" right after you thought, "This is a joke, right?" I will admit that I held all of these accusations against Zookeeper when I entered the theater, but one thing I've learned is that preemptive decisions to not see a comedy simply because you think you have a grudge against it is BAD BAD BAD. I can understand if people can't stand Kevin James's frenetic humor IF YOU WATCHED IT, but over 400 votes of "1 star" a week before the movie is even released shows some shameful attitudes among IMDb voters. Purposeful down-voting is never justified, and is especially a disservice to Zookeeper, which actually turned out to be a pleasant surprise.

Roger Ebert put it best when he said: "Look, a great movie this is not. A pleasant summer entertainment it is." The moments that make an awful comedy awful are the ones when you feel like burying your face in your hands and wishing you never saw a second of this movie. You can all think of those times, I'm sure. Personally, Zookeeper NEVER gave me one of those moments. The plot was a breath of innocent fresh air and managed to keep me interested in the movie. The romantic tensions in Paul Blart: Mall Cop were ridiculously exaggerated, but in Zookeeper were quite low-key. The same goes for Kevin James's boyish, frenetic acting; James has an inherent likability about him that really carries the weight of the film. Be it puppets, animation, or real animal movement, the zoo animals were impressive as well and sported some convincing lip-dialogue sync that you wouldn't expect to find in a movie like this. With a varied cast that will keep you guessing at who voices who, the animals are the second great half of the show. This is a family film aimed at innocent, happy-go-lucky moviegoers and you know it - so if you're looking at a pleasant and light time at the theater, Zookeeper is the one to check out this weekend. But if you want the typical Hollywood explosions, then grab three extra dollars and head down to see Transformers 3 in 3D instead.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

A fun and creative comedy, but a lot of wasted potential!

[7/10 · 6 July 2011]

Horrible Bosses hits the road running and starts right off with an interesting (and perhaps relatable) scenario. Three average Joe's decide they've had enough of their psychotic, incompetent, and nymphomaniacal bosses and seek out a hit-man to relieve them of their headaches. However, things go awry and the plan instead transforms into a Hitchcockian scheme to murder one another's bosses.

As a comedy, Horrible Bosses really shines. The plot alone is a breath of fresh air, and when the jokes start rolling they don't let up. The film turned out to be a seamless flow of clever and engaging hilarity.

The major disappointment was on the part of the boss characters. For goodness sakes, if you manage to nab Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston as your antagonists, you should award them with plenty of juicy, villainous screen time. Unfortunately that doesn't really happen, and it's a shameful waste of potential. For a comedy like this, the bosses were sufficiently shocking, but their characters were not as fleshed out as I would have liked to see. Still, don't let that discourage your interest in Horrible Bosses – it is guaranteed to entertain!

7/10

Friends with Benefits (2011)

Leave it to Justin and Mila to make a better "No Strings Attached"

[7/10 · 16 June 2011]

So is Friends With Benefits better than No Strings Attached? Yes. And if that's all you needed to settle a bet with your friend, you can go call him up now and plan a trip to the theater July 22 to find out why.

Justin Timberlake has proved once again that he can actually act... Pretty well, actually. And that automatically puts him lightyears ahead of Ashton Kutcher. Additionally, Justin and Mila have some excellent and convincing chemistry that really supports the film, along with a handful of jokes and hilarious cameos that make for some good laughs. But the story falls flat where it tries to parody the typical romance movie because ultimately, it adheres to the exact same chick-flick formula: Guy meets girl, they hit it off, complications arise, they fall apart, they resolve their issues, and voilà... happily ever after. And Mila's mother in the movie... where have we seen her character before? Oh that's right, literally copy+pasted from Easy A.

I suppose you probably wouldn't expect anything more out of this movie than the run-of-the-mill romance comedy, but it's a solid one at that and worth your while if you're interested!

7/10

Mr. Popper's Penguins (2011)

Mr. Popper's Penguins - predicated on public's preference on principal performer

[6/10 · 16 June 2011]

Here's the rundown...

THE GOOD:

-Jim Carrey's humor

-The penguins are CGI

-The film takes a modest modern twist on the book

-It's meant to appeal to the kids

THE BAD:

-Jim Carrey's humor

-The penguins are CGI

-The film takes a modest modern twist on the book

-It's meant to appeal to the kids

It's really a hit or miss situation here. The story is only loosely related to the book, so if you're a die-hard fan... stay away. So many liberties were taken to make Mr. Popper's Penguins a contemporary story that it is reduced to a weak shadow behind Jim Carrey's character. Films this rushed and awkward can pass as children's films, and in that regard I have little to no issue with the movie. It's an a adequate feel-good comedy for the entire family, but it all really comes down to your opinion of Jim Carrey. 6/10

Super 8 (2011)

J.J. Abrams does it again!

[8/10 · 8 June 2011]

As you might expect, J. J. Abrams has churned out another exhilarating experience with solid entertainment. Imagine, if you will, a combination of The Goonies + Cloverfield and you will get Super 8, the story of a young boy and his friends that witness a creature escaping a crashed military train while filming with a super 8 camera. As I heard an audience member say after the screening, J. J. Abrams put his fingerprint on this movie, then smeared it all over. The mysterious creature is only glimpsed a handful of times during the first half of the film, and the story will keep you constantly guessing and engaged. With the aid of some fantastic special effects, Super 8 will no doubt be one of the most exciting films of this summer, additionally offering a nostalgic reminder of the times of Spielberg's E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. So the bottom line is: Super 8 is good, and if you're watching it as a J. J. Abrams fan, you're in for a real treat.

But the film is not without its flaws. Within this young cast you can sense a lot of rising stars… but that's just it. They're still "rising". It is a common problem to have some amateur acting with kids. The story is not entirely original either. However, these are only minor complaints against the movie. The main issue with Super 8 is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Is it a coming-of-age drama? Is it an alien action film? Is it horror mystery? Alien and horror and mystery genres can mix quite nicely, but unfortunately coming-of-age… not so much. One aspect of the film focuses on the adventure of kids in a rural town while another focuses on a violently rampaging alien. The result is a schizophrenic jumble of genres that has you shifting uncomfortably in your seat at the idea of kids watching certain scenes. For this reason, I STRONGLY caution adults taking their kids to see this movie. Super 8 had more blood, cursing, and blatant drug references than any movie I have seen in a while. IT's a bit like walking into Kick-ass expecting a child's movie. In my honest opinion Super 8 should have been rated R, but Abrams was careful when pushing the limits of PG-13 rules. Indeed, this movie was a wonderful throwback to the days of E.T., but perhaps should only be viewed by those who watched E.T. when it came out. Don't forget that the Abrams touch is violent, as well as mysterious! 8/10

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Packs twice the punch, in every way!

[9/10 · 22 May 2011]

Let me preface by saying I was rather unimpressed with the first Kung Fu Panda. As entertaining and well-choreographed as it was, it didn't pass my bar for mediocre DreamWorks animated movies. It was amusing and had some heart, but all-in-all was pretty expected. Now when I got a chance to see a preview of Kung Fu Panda 2, I was rather indifferent to seeing DreamWorks trying to pump out a mediocre sequel and a new franchise. But WOW... was I wrong! I take back everything I said earlier because, man oh man, I have to admit that Kung Fu Panda 2 was one of the best animated films I have ever seen.

In in this installment, we find Po and the Furious Five defending the Valley of Peace from evil when a new threat rises. Lord Shen, an albino peacock banished by his parents many years ago, has returned with a technology capable of ending kung fu and conquering China. As the Furious Five embark to destroy the weapon, Po begins to realize that Shen may be linked to his lost childhood past as a panda bear. I won't say any more in fear of spoiling the story, but be prepared for a powerful emotional experience.

I found a big improvement was that they toned down all the things that made the first movie irritating: over-the-top Jack Black antics, overused slow-mo effects, and dialogue silliness. That's not to say Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn't have humor; actually, it has exactly the right amount at the right time. I found myself rolling my eyes a lot at the jokes in the first movie, but the sequel had me (and the whole theater, for that matter) genuinely laughing! The characters have fully matured and been fleshed out to the point where even Jack Black fits comfortably as Po, though regrettably the Furious Five barely get any screen time. Of course, shining in the spotlight was Gary Oldman as the sinister Lord Shen, whose fantastically evil voice acting tops even Ian McShane's as Tai Lung and is the ONLY way that a peacock could possibly be made scary! The 3D was also showcased quite well, enhancing most of the visuals throughout the movie without being a headache.

Maybe you call it blasphemy, but the comparison must be made. Kung Fu Panda 2 was put together with such a degree of excellence that it rivals many Pixar movies (and in my opinion has a good chance of outshining Cars 2 this year). With some fantastic animation, a surprising and touching story, and convincing voice talent, Kung Fu Panda 2 will easily go down as one of my all-time animated favorites.

9/10

Rango (2011)

Nickelodeon bares its fangs

[8/10 · 2 March 2011]

So a slight blurb about how surprised I was that Nickelodeon was tackling several mature themes: Rango boasted quite a number of darker undertones that you wouldn't normally expect from a PG, animated Nickelodeon movie. Such areas included language (sporting such lines as "You son of a-"!, "Go to hell!", and "Can I gut-shoot someone?"), violence (an impressive amount of shooting and dying), sexual themes (making references to how "active" one's mother was and a joke about a mammogram), and the film's portrayal of death (where characters constantly expect Rango's death and at one point, parody death by hanging). That is, you could arguably find just as much material in other animated films, such as The Incredibles- but it just goes to show that Nickelodeon is ready to experiment with a braver sort of film, much like Disney did with Pirates of the Caribbean. Okay, disclaimer over.

Rango is beautiful film that, regardless of its content, gave everyone in the theater a darn good time. Borrowing heavily from classic Westerns (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly) and Western comedies (The Three Amigos), the film brings reinvents a past formula in an amusingly creative way. Rango, a pet chameleon unsure about how he wants his identity to develop, is suddenly cast to into the life of the wild wild west and decides to assume the duties of the sheriff in a troubled town. When the gunslingin' enemies arrive, the trouble begins...

If anything, the film is revolutionary in its animation. The quality and textures of the animals and landscape is simply spot-on and never ceases to amaze. By far this is the movie's greatest strength- and supporting the beautiful visuals is a whole slew of jokes. Like I said before, sometimes the humor is a bit awkward for its targeted audience (there were definitely a lot of times adults laughed instead of the kids) but for the most part the theater as a whole enjoyed the comedic spots. The voice acting cast is of course lively and fun, bringing a unique quality to each and every animal character. And lastly, the score by Hans Zimmer is once again majestic and exciting (influences from his work in Pirates and Sherlock Holmes are easily heard, but with a Mexican twist!).

Overall, Rango is a beautiful and exciting western adventure that you shouldn't miss! As long as you know what you're in for, the humor and the visuals will take you for an unforgettably pleasing ride. 8/10

Black Swan (2010)

What the art of filmmaking is truly about

[10/10 · 17 December 2010]

After I watch a film of true vision, I feel as if I want to cry, out of inspiration, respect, and absolute appreciation.

I wanted to cry after Black Swan.

Darren Aronofsky has created a chilling masterpiece that should set the bar not only for psychological thrillers, but for all artistic movies for years to come. My heart has never pounded harder during a movie from the tumult of sheer, dark intensity. Genius in development, writing, music, cinematography, and especially acting, Black Swan and its cast and crew may very well deserve every award it is nominated for.

Giving away any more details than that would be a huge disservice to both viewers and the movie, so my only advice is to get in the theater some way or another and watch it. A near "perfect" film in every way, Black Swan is perhaps the star of 2010 and not a movie you should miss. 10/10

True Grit (2010)

Historically and cinematically solid. Well done, Coen brothers.

[8/10 · 15 December 2010]

It takes true grit to attempt to remake the 1969 Oscar-winning, John Wayne classic, but the Coen brothers were up to the task and thankfully they were competent in their rendition of the Western tale. After the success of their dark, humorless drama No Country for Old Men, the Coens have returned to the scene of dark epics to test their directing skills yet again, this time adding some of that Coen humor to the mix as well.

But thinking of this movie as a remake of the first film is road to disappointment, so don't. The Coen brothers drew their creativity from Charles Portis's 1968 novel, gave a few nods John Wayne's way, and then made the movie entirely their own. The result is a wonderful experience of all the authentic period settings, speech, accents, clothing, hair, and oh, those teeth.

I won't give away any details, but the acting in this movie was absolutely superb! Jeff Bridges made no attempt to imitate or replace John Wayne as the rough, gruff, and vulgar Rooster Cogburn and in the end created an incredibly convincing character. A pleasant surprise, nearly all of the actors and actresses in the film put out some of their best performances to date, even if only with small roles, including Matt Damon as the inept Texas Ranger, Barry Pepper as Lucky Ned Pepper, and Josh Brolin as the hopeless coward Tom Chaney. On top of it all, Hailee Steinfeld made a fantastic Mattie Ross, playing the naively headstrong girl that avenges her father's death by pursuing his murderer with U.S. Marshall Cogburn.

The Coens' True Grit is a impressive visit to the classic Old West that neither diminishes nor tries to compete with the 1969 film. Definitely a classic to add to the Coen collection! 8/10

127 Hours (2010)

It makes a better story than it does a movie

[6/10 · 18 November 2010]

127 Hours, as its title suggests, recounts the 127 hours that hiker and rock climber Aron Ralston spends stranded in a slot canyon, based on recounts of the true story in Ralston's best-selling memoir "Between a Rock and a Hard Place". After an accident with a loose rock, Ralston stumbles into a crevice and ultimately lands with his right arm wedged tightly between the rock and the canyon wall. As the days pass by, Ralston runs low on water, uses up his food, and his efforts at chipping away at the rock with a dull knife seem to be in vain. The only thing that keeps him going are promises he made to his family and the hope that he would one day see his loved ones again.

As you can imagine, this movie is as much director Danny Boyle's as it is James Franco's. When nearly all of the film's 94 minutes consist of Franco's psychological turmoil, his acting has to carry the movie, and as expected, Franco pulls it off very nicely. Expect some terrific and believable acting as Ralston struggles not only to free himself from the rocky prison, but also to come to terms with personal mistakes he made earlier in his life. However, 127 Hours may unwittingly fall into the category of 'psychological thriller', and with such a genre comes some strong expectations: intense scriptwriting and extraordinary acting. While the film may not necessarily be a "thriller" because it purposely recounts the real-life story of Aron Ralston, it still falls victim to its requirements; and this is where we see a disappointment in the movie. Nothing is missing from the acting side, but the script is regular, rather boring, and predictable. We know Ralston is still alive, we know he suffered, we know some parts were gritty- but no flourish is added to the original story to make it interesting. Everything is straightforward- no twists. 127 Hours wishes itself to be more engaging than it actually is. Still, it stays close to the facts of the book, which leads me to the conclusion that Ralston's tale makes a better story than it does a movie (and that psychological thrillers may not be Boyle's strong suit).

James Franco puts out a terrific role in this movie, but aside from his performance you can't expect anything too out-of-the-ordinary or impressive. 6/10

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

A big improvement in the series!

[7/10 · 15 November 2010]

In my mind, the Deathly Hallows Part 1 captured the feeling of exactly what the Harry Potter movies should have been all along: gritty, emotional, and cinematic. I haven't been a huge fan of any of the HP movies to date, but I was pleased with the Deathly Hallows because it took a big step up in maturity from the "children's fantasy" genre and focused on themes very central to the seventh book: hopelessness and desperation.

After the death of Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore, the magical world falls into disarray as Voldemort gains power over the Ministry of Magic and hunts tirelessly after his mortal enemy and our continuing protagonist, Harry Potter. While keeping a low cover, Harry, Ron, and Hermoine decide to track down and destroy Voldemort's soul contained in hidden "horcruxes" but have difficulties deciding what to do and where to start.

The Deathly Hallows very successfully portrays the despair-filled journey of the wizarding trio. With dark undertones running through the cinematography, Part 1 of the Harry Potter finale is the film that deals more with the emotional stagnation of the characters and spends less time with action scenes and major plot points. Since Rowling's seventh book is separated into two movies, Part 1 boasts a much slower pace than earlier HP films and is not so focused on cramming as many subplots and side-stories from the book as possible into the movie's runtime, which tends to clutter up the storyline and make the whole thing feel rushed.

But where the slow pacing makes this film stand out in the series, it also may be its downfall. The Deathly Hallows continually feeds us a feeling of desolation as Harry, Ron and Hermoine fail to discover a way to destroy the horcruxes; they seem to be making no progress towards defeating the Dark Lord, but as an effect the movie seems to be making no progress towards an ending. Storyline lags intensely towards the middle of the film and is dragged out until the conclusion (which ends abruptly). You'll be left in your seats feeling like this is going nowhere- but that's the point: Harry, Ron, and Hermoine are getting nowhere. So I liked this movie because the pace was slow, but I also didn't like this movie because the pace was slow. See what I'm getting at? Aside from that, I can't complain much. Performances were fine, effects were impressive, and best of all, nothing dastardly was done to J.K. Rowling's story.

The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a nice improvement and a fine addition to the Harry Potter series and should serve as a solid emotional base for Part 2 to take off with next year. If you've enjoyed the HP movies so far, this should be a satisfying experience at least. If not, let the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 redeem your faith in the series. 7/10

P.S. Keep on the lookout for the scene about the deathly hallows story. It has some of the most beautiful and artistic animation I have ever seen in a movie.

Morning Glory (2010)

Morning Glory - refreshingly sweet

[7/10 · 8 November 2010]

Rachel McAdams leads the way in this surprisingly refreshing flick as the workaholic television show producer, Becky, who lands the job of organizing "the worst morning show ever". She only has a short time to save the show's plummeting ratings, and in doing so must battle with low worker morale, conceited anchors, poor working conditions, as well as her own inadequacy in dealing with guy-problems. Desperate for a change, she recruits the legendary newscaster Mike Pomeroy, played by Harrison Ford, who is less than willing to cover any story he does not consider "worthy of his reputation".

The film brings not just a comic story of working with grumpy people, but the beautiful emotional tale of a girl who realizes her dream of being a television producer and, by pulling everyone together against the odds, creates a family in the process. But where the story is rather run-of-the-mill, the chemistry between the impressive cast is the movie's redeeming quality. Across the board, acting was fantastic, and in all honesty the movie owes its success to McAdams and Ford. Rachel McAdams should be commended for her frustrated role as Becky, and has proved that she has much more to offer than a just pretty face. Harrison Ford, perhaps the true star of the show, fully embraced the character of Pomeroy did a wonderfully fantastic job being grumpy, conceited, and an all-around "asshole" in one of his best roles as of late.

Morning Glory is a nice tale that will leave you with a sweet taste in your mouth. Combined with some real solid acting, this is not a movie you'll regret checking out!

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

There's never been a movie quite like Scott Pilgrim before... and there may be a reason for that

[6/10 · 4 August 2010]

Scott Pilgrim is a normal boy living in Toronto, recovering from a devastating breakup by bouncing off of a high school Chinese girl, when suddenly he becomes captivated by the newbie in town, Ramona Flowers. However, after he suddenly discovers the league of seven evil exes set on controlling Ramona's future, their love lives become tangled, convoluted, and everything gets messy.

The first thing you'll notice in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is its incredibly unique style. There's never exactly been a movie like this in the past, and with a visionary like Edgar Wright at the helm, that is nothing to be ashamed of. The movie is entirely based off of the "Scott Pilgrim" graphic novel series; but wherein this is the film's greatest feature, it is also its greatest weakness. It's based off the comics- you can tell. And not necessarily in a good way.

Edgar Wright has achieved a fantastic way to bring a comic book to life. If you've really been searching for a live-action, 3D, moving version of a comic book then you'll want to pat him on the back. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World gets as close to bringing the "graphic novel" style to the big screen as Speed Racer was in successfully bringing the "anime" style to the theaters, which in my opinion is pretty darn close. Scott Pilgrim fans will get a kick out of this one; the film pays homage to the graphic novel in more ways than one. The problem is, you're fitting multiple volumes of this series into a 112 minute movie. The characterization is rushed, the relationships are sorely underdeveloped, a load of character history is barely (if even) explained, and you can't shake the "there's-more-to-this-story-than-they're-telling-us" feeling that only the hardcore Pilgrim fans are probably exempt from.

The acting was solid, the humor was definitely a strong point, but the tendency for the storyline to feel rushed often got in the way of fully enjoying this movie. All-in-all, it WAS a fun flick to say the least; it just wasn't all there.

If you're looking for another round of Michael Cera jokes and an intriguing comic book-style, then by all means check this one out. If that doesn't float your boat, then don't bother. Although style is a strong suit here, sometimes it teeters on the brink of being bizarre and immature. Re-watch the trailer- that will be enough "style" to suffice for one night.

6/10

The Last Airbender (2010)

Awful-tar : The Last Shyamalan Movie I Ever Want to See

[3/10 · 1 July 2010]

M. Night's career as a director has been spiraling downwards ever since The Sixth Sense, we can all agree. But on The Last Airbender, his most recent major project, his credibility simply plummeted.

You know that embarrassing feeling you get when you're watching an amateur movie? Yeah, you'll get a lot of that if you spend your money to watch this in the theaters, which is ill-advised. The Last Airbender simply had no direction, and the script flopped around aimlessly to try and wrap up an entire season of the animated TV show, Avatar (which it is based off of), in 103 minutes. The dialogue was appalling and the poor development of story made audience members moan and groan. An entire love relationship is created with the single, randomly narrated line of, "They became friends very quickly", while two characters who have just met allot the other a generous five second stare each. Embarrassing scriptwriting such as this is what caused the failing of The Last Airbender. This was NOT helped by the mediocre acting performances of Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, and Seychelle Gabriel.

Poor acting, poor scripting, poor directing. What was there to like? Sadly the action sequences, few and far between, are hardly engaging enough to satisfy any moviegoer's appetite, for lack of other elements. I was told by friends that while the movie stayed true to the general plot of the animated TV series, the action was poorly represented. Underpowered, and a bit superfluous in movement, the much needed fight scenes became almost tedious to watch.

The world of Avatar was curious; I'll give it that. The environment with the four elemental nations, each with its own unique race, which far from appearing racist, was actually one of the few ideas that made the movie... somewhat interesting.

A general question continued to run through my mind... It was almost as if M. Night thought to himself, "What is the LEAST I could do with my budget?" And I think he found the perfect answer with The Last Airbender.

I award M. Night's latest masterpiece in his spiraling antics a generous 4/10.

Watchmen (2009)

Watchmen

[8/10 · 6 March 2009]

Let me say this before I begin. Alan Moore's graphic novel was monumental and spectacular. I am a fan of the graphic novel myself, so don't take me wrong when I say that I believed it was possible for Zach Snyder to overtake Alan Moore's original work. Now, did he? Not quite. Let's see why (this is intended for people who have previously read Watchmen) :

The Story- Oh, the plot. This is where fan boys and Watchmen geeks start feeling antsy. It's true that many small scenes and alternate story lines were removed in order to correctly adjust to the feel of the movie. The Tales of the Black Freighter, mainly, was the most unfortunate loss in this process, but with a movie length already in arm's reach of three hours, it's understandable why this aspect of Watchmen was taken out. Besides, it will be featured on a spin-off DVD. Aside from that, the details from that book that were removed were, in retrospect, too minor to cause a significant disturbance to the movie. There simply isn't enough lost content for fan boys to be up in arms. So yes, I'll say it: Snyder removed what he deemed was "unnecessary" to the core of the plot, and he pulled it off! In fact, while I was watching the film I hardly noticed the deleted content at all. It was only until I began pondering the movie after I had seen it when I realized that certain scenes had been left out at all. The movie was so intensely captivating that the thought never crossed my mind the whole while that my eyes were glued to the screen. It's amazing how much of the film ended up looking exactly alike to the novel. The ending, however, had some major revisions! Oh, the HORROR! Come on. They took out the giant, psychic, alien squid. Big deal. Can you honestly say that after reading the graphic novel ending, you weren't thinking, "What the hell? Really?" Eventually, the idea of alien squids settled in our minds, and we convinced ourselves that it created a satisfactory ending. Well, guess what? You can still achieve the same effect with the ending Snyder concocted. The idea of using Dr. Manhattan's power instead of alien squids is a bit less far-fetched and much more comforting to our common sense. Honestly, it's not as major a change as critics make it out to be. Don't call me a heretic, but I may just have liked Snyder's ending little more

The Characters/Actors- Well here's something I didn't expect. After being blown away by Heath Ledger's joker in Dark Knight, what can you expect from actors in a super hero movie? I didn't expect much from Matthew Goode or Malin Akerman. But I was wrong. Matthew Goode, though tweaking the appearance of the original Ozymandias, performed wonderfully. His acting was a bit out of place in a few scenes, but nothing that might make it anything worse than awkward. Goode's build may not match that of a ridiculously muscular superhuman, but it is not a noticeable of a defect. He was a little feminine though well, I won't go there. Crudup was fine, but his normal human voice was far too soft to personify an immortal like Dr. Manhattan. Oh, and thanks for the big, blue penis. Appreciate that. Very faithful to the novel. On a different note, Patrick Wilson and Haley were absolutely stunning; it's impossible to use words to describe how well they fit their characters, so I won't try. The only weakness, maybe, was Malin Akerman's performance. MAYBE. She exceeded my expectations, no doubt. She was good enough, but not great. The Comedian was portrayed just as well as anyone else by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Overall, it was a strong, well-put together cast. Oh, and Nixon's ridiculously enlarged nose was actually accurate, just in case you were wondering

Visual Effects- Damn. I mean, how do you top the stuff Snyder throws at his audience, especially with the budget he had? Effects were simply spectacular; no doubt about it. This is perhaps the strongest aspect of the movie. I expected nothing less (however, I did cringe slightly in a couple scenes involving Archy and Dr. Manhattan, in which the CGI did not seem very realistic). GORE! Be forewarned! BLOOD, GUTS, GORE! There, I warned you. Aside from the occasional glowing penis, the most shocking parts came from the most satisfyingly violent scenes. The fighting was magnificent! Nostalgia took over during the hand-to-hand combat scenes as I was reminded of martial arts fights immortalized in The Matrix. Then fascination took over as I watched the scenes explode with action and enter a whole new level of awesomeness.

So, overall? I proudly award Watchmen with a well-deserved 9/10. For being an "un-filmable" graphic novel, Snyder certain created a good movie. I still am reeling over the entire thing. Whoa, what just happened!? Watchmen happened. Snyder, his cast, his crew, and all you loyal fans made it happen. They truly made the Watchmen come to life. Bravo! So next time you hear a grumpy critic rave about how Watchmen fell short or read a harsh criticism of the movie, you know they've caught Alan Moore-ism. Yes, with a nasty attitude like Alan Moore's that refuses to even give the Watchmen movie a chance to live up to the novel, it stands no chance in the mind of the public. While I respect Moore's point of view, I still disapprove of his intolerant attitude. Why is it impossible to create a film adaptation of a graphic novel and not miss out on the big picture? I believe once Watchmen spreads and grows exponentially in popularity, then the Alan Moore's of the world will truly be the ones missing out.