The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

As a child, C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia enthralled me. I remember my mom reading them to me before I could even read, and re-reading the series several times after I could. In particular, The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader was always my favorite. I had it on a dramatized audiobook that I would listen to over and over again. There was action, suspense, dragons--it was anything and everything a child could want from a book.

Whenever I go to a movie made about a book, I try to keep an open mind. Sure, Lord of the Rings might have missed a few plot elements, and no, you really shouldn't get me started on Eragon, but I find that while movies are different from the books, they are seldom really terrible adaptations. In this sense, I really have no complaints about The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. It had all the elements the books did, even if they weren't necessarily in order or context, but they really didn't do a bad job. My biggest problem was how much was added to the story. In fact, the entire basis of the story was changed. Rather than a personal quest to find Caspian's father's councilors, it became a quest to collect swords to destroy some kind of mist demanding of human sacrifice. Sure, none of this was in the book, but who's going to notice?

That's not my problem. This is my problem: Where is the spirit?? When I walked into the theater, I was hoping, praying, to catch even a glimpse of the emotions I felt as a child. The horror of the unexpected and the terror of the unseen; the satisfaction when life is ok and the unease when life's not--this movie fails to give the moral or emotional impact that I adored from the books. Alas, the world is not as it was.

But really, I can't complain about this movie. The special effects were satisfying, if just barely, the acting had it's ups and downs, but nothing bad enough to spoil it, and the story was highly skewed and de-humanized, but not detrimental. When you pay for admission, you expect 2 hours of nice family entertainment. Maybe some surprising scenes that will thrill, but not scare your kids? Maybe a few chuckle-worthy scenes to keep you interested? That's what you get. Nothing more.

With a solid $24 million opening, it looks like we're getting a sequel with even less of the characters that make these movies beloved by its fans. yay.

A nice story to enliven your mind; a nice cookie-cutter message to warm your heart; a nice visual journey to keep your eyes open: all in all, a nice movie. 7/10. Disappointing, but worthwhile.

TRON: Legacy

Daring. Vivid. Brutally real. Visionary. Joseph Kosinski's dystopian debut pushes boundaries and defies convention, but once grasping our attention and fastening our eyes to the sleek fiction unfolding on the screen, we realize that this movie is more of a dated facade designed to rake in profits than it is the perspective-changing vision were were lured into watching.

Even the best of movies can be corrupted by even a few bad lines, or perhaps a few good lines that are poorly delivered. Needless to say, this was neither a dialogue-driven, nor a performance-driven film, to say the least. Garrett Hudland was less than perfect (almost unlikable, even) and even a respected actor like Jeff Bridges failed to deliver. "Crazy Heart" Jeff Bridges was infinitely more satisfying than "Tron: Legacy" Jeff Bridges. And while I'm sure Tron is a boost to Olivia Wilde's up-and-coming career, it certainly didn't boost her credibility as an actor. And don't get me started on Michael Sheen. He should just be ashamed of himself.

On the bright side, Daft Punk's music left nothing to be lacking. Bravo.

Not to discredit the whole movie, it did have a few redeeming aspects. The graphics were gorgeous, and the pure imagination of the movie was nearly astounding. It is quite unfortunate that once the "box" was thought outside of, the producers couldn't think of any better message than the stereotypical "bittersweet happy ending." No revelation of truth, no affirmation of the importance of family, no worthwhile message of any greater good. What a shameful waste.

Sadly, there's really nothing more to be said in this movie's defense.

On the whole, this is a "nice" movie. Beautiful, different, but unfortunately shallow. I give it a generous 7/10 on merit of the visual mastery, soundtrack, and imagination behind it.

Salt

Before I start, I should probably say that this entire review will be covered with spoilers from top to bottom. now. to begin.

Here's the plot of Salt, according to IMDb: "Evelyn Salt is a CIA agent and highly respected by all, including her boss, Ted Winter. Out of the blue, a Russian spy walks into their offices and offers a vital piece of information: the President of Russia will be assassinated during his forthcoming visit to New York City to attend the funeral of the recently deceased U.S. Vice President. The name of the assassin: Evelyn Salt. Concerned about the safety of her husband, who she cannot contact, she goes on the run. Winter refuses to accept that she is a mole or a double agent but her actions begin to raise doubts. Just who is Evelyn Salt and what is she planning?" does this sound like a decent movie? Yes, it does. It's simple, new, and mildly intriguing. is this even vaguely what this movie is about? Of course not.

Were I to attempt to sum up the plot of Salt, I would say something like this: "A secret Russian agent, working for the CIA as a cover, and pretends to kill the Russian president, because she's actually a triple agent, working for America, because apparently, America's just inherently good. after she succeeds in pretending to kill the president, she murders her Russian leader, although she has every reason to remain loyal to him, helps save America from nuclear war, kills another double agent, and escapes to who knows where after she convinces a government friend that she's a triple agent." did that make sense? No, of course not. Why? Because Salt (the Russian agent, played by Angelina Jolie) had no motivation whatsoever. She was trained since birth to work for Russia, endured no end of hardships for her country, did everything exactly how she was supposed to, and then, seemingly without cause, switched sides. Could it be because she loved her husband? no. Her husband was German, and uninvolved until near the end, when he was killed. could it be that she became attached to her colleagues? doubtfully. she killed several of them, and ran from the rest. Could it be that she was angry at the Russian society for killing her husband? doubtfully. she was a triple agent before they killed her husband. If she had a motivation, it is quite beyond me.

Additionally, the plot was really a two-movie story. Anyone who has seen "The Box" understands what I mean. The concept, expected due to the trailers, set up in the movie, and completed convincingly, was that Salt, a Russian spy, was going to kill the Russian president. That's all very well. There was a huge set up for a twist, but by the end of this particular section of the plot, the result was more or less "yup. that's it." after that, the plot spiraled downward, crashed, and burned. This is hauntingly similar to the plot of The Box. This movie was written by Kurt Wimmer, writer and producer or Law Abiding Citizen, who really should have known better.

But lets move on. I am pleased to say that I have never in my life seen more people killed by being hit with guns. No, not by being "shot" by guns.... being "hit" by guns. A pleasant break from the overplayed "shoot everybody really fast" routine that action movies seem to favor, or the "a secret agent can kill anybody with anything" routine Hollywood has recently fallen in love with.

But while the action was commendable and the plot was detrimental, perhaps the acting can save this movie? Ha. don't be silly. Jolie and Liev Schreiber (best known as Sabertooth from X-Men Origins: Wolverine) did awfully; terribly; horribly; almost unforgivably. Chiwetel Ejiofor (known for his work in Children of Men, American Gangster, and 2012), while not a terrible actor, is seemingly unable to act more than one character. However, almost seemingly in a feeble attempt to redeem the movie, August Diehl (known from a minor role in Inglorious Basterds) and Daniel Olbrychski (this being his first major American film role, but with a more than impressive television resume) did excellently, particularly Olbrychski, who I would enjoy seeing in more roles.

So on the whole, this was a mindless, pointless, wasteful movie. The plot was almost unbearable, the acting was shameful, and while the action was interesting, these things just don't add up to a "good" movie. If all you're out for is 2 hours to sit in front of a screen and mindlessly take in action and stereotypical plots, you'll find what you're out for. So maybe this movie isn't really pointless, just misdirected. It serves it's purpose: cheap action with a mindless story. for that reason, I give it a generous 4/10

Inception

Everybody loves a good "thinking movie." From the reality-bending conclusions of movies such as Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" or  Scorsese's "Shutter Island" to the psychological torture of Nolan's "The Dark Knight" or Kubric's acclaimed classic "A Clockwork Orange," to the familiarly bent reality of Fincher's "Fight Club"--people love to think at the movies. More than to think, people love to understand something new after a movie. While mindless films such as Transformers or Avatar grab sizable portions of the box office, who can ignore the legacy of what is generally agreed to be a "good" movie; a movie that lingers in the viewers mind, that can be reflected on and admired long after leaving the theater. What people love is ingenuity. "Inception" literally means "a beginning" or "the start of a new idea", and a new idea is what it delivers. Without question, Nolan has lived up to his golden reputation once again.

In fact, this is a movie in which I found very few flaws. Nolan directs enchantingly and magnificently, if not in the "high-art" style many similarly acclaimed movies share. DiCaprio delivered one of his better performances, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Peacock) was very nearly flawless in his role. The one real problem I had with the acting was the relationship between Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Eames (Tom Hardy.) While Nolan obviously tried to create a sort of teasing witty rivalry between the two, it wasn't pushed enough to become secure. The result was a half-hearted chemistry that was neither convincing, or added to the movie.

Now for the story...  It was an enchanting and clever story, but was slightly flawed. The genius of this movie lies in the fact that it pleases the audience by showing them something new and makes them think they understand it, while at the same time, it leaves enough open-ended and unanswered questions to leave them wanting to come back and experience it again. It's flaw lied in the fact that there were so many unanswered questions. For instance, the very first scene in the movie showed Cobb (DiCaprio) washed up on a beach. He's taken to the home of a very old man, where he proceeds to try to steal a secret from a younger man's safe. At the end of the movie, he goes back to the exact same scenario, is taken to the house of the very same old man, but this time, the old man IS the younger man, grown up. so who's the old man the first time? It's the questions like these that brings the audience back to see this film again and again, but no matter how many times they see it, the question will never be answered. But even though I have pointed it out as a "flaw," perhaps it is really a clever device... after all, it DOES accomplish great things for the movie.

Visually, this movie was striking, but not quite all it could have been. The slow-motion bits were nice, but could have undoubtedly been better. Without giving too much away, by the climax of the film, there were 4 or 5 levels of reality, each one of which were relatively 20 times slower than the level before it. so a minute in one level could be as long as over 100 years in another level. this leads to some wonderful level-jumping slow-motion shots, but were never pushed as far as they could have been, never going more than 2 levels in either direction. Additionally, the visual spectacle of the film wasn't exercised enough. While it was a wonderful story with occasional striking imagery, it was never as visually spectacular as it could have been.

As I've mentioned above, the story was really the strong point of the film. However, the dialogue left much to be wanted. Nolan certainly wouldn't have hurt anything to have brought someone else in to polish the screenplay, maybe insert some clever lines, and add a bit of charisma to the characters. It's the dialogue that makes movies like Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" tick, and Inception could have greatly benefited from it.

But after all, this is all nitpicking. On the whole, this was a highly-entertaining, intellectually provocative, visually mesmerizing (if not striking), film. While it may not be life-shattering or world-changing, it is easily one of the best films of the year, very nearly living up to it's "perfect movie" reputation. I would give it a 9.5/10, and plan on seeing it again when it is released on DVD

Knight and Day

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a wonder beyond your wildest dreams; a spectacle the likes of which your eyes have never before witnessed; a marvel of the modern world; an unparalleled treasure to which you will never find an equal. I present to you: a Hollywood action movie with little-acclaimed, and slightly outdated actors, an un-notable director, with a slightly familiar story with a not-too-radical twist. Yes, we live in a day when run-off-the-mill action movies are not only a dime a dozen, but also disproportionally sensationalized, all for the sake of making as much money as possible out of apathetic, easy-to-please audiences with low standards, and apparently too much money in their pocket. Fortunately, Knight and Day exceeded my expectations, which were, unfortunately, very low.

It's a difficult thing to not clump "action" movies--or any genre for that matter--together, but Knight and Day was a movie that, in fact, although outwardly fitting the above description of an average, mind-numbing action movie, surprises the viewer into enjoying it. Although this wasn't a movie that makes one think, it certainly forces one to pay attention. If the viewer goes to see this movie and merely sits down to take it in, a majority of it's beauties and foreshadowings will be missed, and consequentially not enjoyed. The more the viewer actively observes, the more he takes away, and the more he enjoys. I'm afraid this movie entirely passes up the typical audience, hence it's unpopular reception at the box-office.

So what about this movie makes it tick? We all know Tom Cruise has outstayed his welcome in Hollywood, Cameron Diaz is too much the Hollywood veteran to be a carrying star, and James Marigold has enjoyed little to no acknowledgment as a director, plus anyone can see that the typical "killing machine" intrigue has worn off through movies such as the Bourne trilogy, and a romantic action twist just doesn't cut it any more. However, all of these components fit together masterfully to create a movie that not only stands out, but shines when given the attention it deserves. Although alone, no particular part of this movie stands out, each piece works together for the greater good of the movie.

If I had to pick one thing about the modern movie that not so much bothers, but annoys me the most, I would say it was bad running jokes. By "running jokes" I mean a joke, a line, or a sequence that's brought up early in the movie, that's repeated late in the movie for romantic, comedic, or dramatic effect. When used incorrectly, these can ruin a perfectly good evening. It was truly a relief to be pleasantly surprised by a good running joke. Kudos' to Patrick O'Neil, this being his first job screenwriting for a movie.

Does anybody else think that Jordi Molla, the actor who played Antonio, looks strikingly like Russel Crowe, star of Marigold's last film, 3:10 to Yuma? coincidence? hm....

Also, it would be nice to see Maggie Grace of "Lost" and "Taken" in more serious roles.

On the whole, I give Knight and Day an 8/10, being a film that I not only enjoyed, but would like to see again. although I am no fan of either Cruise or Diaz, this was a nice escape from the realities of real life, as well as of Hollywood's infamous factory-line sludge.

How To Train Your Dragon:

Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King--I think you would agree: these are good films for any writer to have under his belt. Meet Chris Sanders, former Disney bigwig turned Dreamworks director, who is, I believe, the first in a prospectively bright line of Dreamworks directors. Why so hopeful? Writer/director Sanders, along with fellow Mulan and Lilo and Stich co-director Dean DeBlois, have managed to breath life into a lifeless genre: the Paramont Sludge. and what, exactly, do I mean by "Paramont Sludge"? Monsters vs. Aliens... Madagascar 2... Bee Movie... Over The Hedge... need I go on? while none of these were terrible movies, I think that movie-goers and critics can agree that these are far from meeting Pixar's high-caliber entertainment standards. Up, WALL-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story, Finding Nemo--Pixar is known for it's family-oriented entertainment with heart; far-fetched stories with spirit.

So why have Sanders and DeBlois restored my faith in non-Pixar animation? Without trying to compete with Paramont's classical "big name" voicing, they chose a very nearly perfect cast: upcoming comedy icons, action stars turned fledgling mainstream actors, late-night television hosts, and, most importantly, Jay Baruchel, the little-known actor voicing the movies main character, Hiccup. although many may grudge him for his lead in The Sorcerer's Apprentice, he delivered excellently under 3D animation's rock-bottom standards.

Now to cut to the core: Hollywood doesn't know how to end a good movie. Happy-go-lucky, "all's well that end's well" endings just don't cut it, and Sander's realizes this. Unlike most live-action movies, and virtually every animated film, this was a movie that, when it's all said and done, made me feel connected to the characters in a way most movies cannot. To have the protagonist(s) abused, disregarded, redeemed, loved, idealized, de-throned, expiated, victorious, defeated, resurrected, and ultimately immortalized and cherished, was entirely ideal. For once, I not only felt the character's presence, but his heart. If anything, that is what mainstream Hollywood just hasn't learned to grasp.

On a side note, Gerard Butler rocks.

Was it the best movie ever? no. the best animated movie? not quite, but even if this film isn't 3D animation's saving grace, it is, at least, proof that it's headed in the right direction. Hats off to you, Sanders.

The A-Team: There Is No Plan B

Finally! A fresh new director in Hollywood: Joe Carnahan. Other than the little-acclaimed Smokin' Aces, this is truly a director with no sizable track record directing a movie that has what it takes to compete in the box office. In fact, compared to the average action-flick, I enjoyed A-Team quite a bit. Why? It was funny, action packed, well characterized, and all-in-all, entertaining. Sure, it might not have had the story value of Dark Knight, or the graphics of Transformers, but this was a genuine action movie. huzzah for Carnahan.

I have very few complaints about this movie, actually. The story was poor and the dialogue was strained at times, but it had some interesting twists and funny lines... enough of them to make me forgive Carnahan completely.

One of my complaints? Liam Neeson. in 2008's wonderful french film Taken, he was looking just a little to old to play the action-type, but he was supposed to be a late-middle-aged father, so I overlooked it. by 2010, he looks very much too old. Sorry, Neeson, everybody has his day. yours ended years ago.

I was, however, very happy with Quinton "Rampage" Jackson. While it's getting more and more common for professional wrestlers to try to enter the film industry, it's getting more and more rare to find one that's actually a decent actor. While Jackson might not be any Morgan Freeman, he's certainly promising, and I hope to see him in future rolls. perhaps an A-Team sequel? You can count on it.

Action movies have a bad rep as being empty and pointless. while this is usually true, sometimes there's a movie that's just good and outrageous enough to be forgiven. A-Team is one of those movies. Maybe it's a little too over-the-top, but fortunately for us, "overkill is underrated."

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

Jerry Bruckheimer. A successful, if modest, movie producer. Armageddon, Remember The Titans, Perl Harbor... BAM. Pirates of the Caribbean. Jerry Bruckheimer proved that Disney still has what it takes to make a good, successful movie. Based of a theme park attraction, none the less. And then... a TV producer? The fear of every industry professional: a career down the television drain. Sure, he had a few movies (notably Deja Vu and G-Force) since his big break, but what happened to our much loved Hollywood hero? BAM. Prince of Persia. but wait, this isn't the Bruckheimer we loved. Sure, it had action, sure it had characters, but where was the spirit? Unfortunately, Disney doesn't still have what it takes.

I'll start off by saying that the action and acrobatics of this movie were very good. And I don't mean, "there was explosions and blood," I mean the action was entertaining, thrilling, and put to good use. Actually, this movie was surprisingly blood-free.

That said, this movie was rather stereotypical and stale. not good for an action movie. The characters were completely stock, seldom lovable, and never clever or witty. strike two. While I understand how it would be difficult to create a movie off of a very old video game, the story was terrible. And I don't just mean that it was a stupid concept, I just mean that it was poorly executed and at times actually boring. And while the ending was great, I'm afraid that's strike three.

Lets go back to the characters: bluntly, this movie had some of the worst, most un-original characters I have ever seen. Typical of Disney, I know, but still, I would have expected more. Pirates of the Caribbean--while some will say was overly complicated, or to stupid--had excellent characters and an interesting story line. As I said, Disney's fallen a long way.

Some of the characters were interesting, don't get me wrong. For example, the snake trainer had a little bit of the "creepy, deformed, and dangerous" edge that many PotC characters had. Unfortunately, characters had little to nothing to do with how the movie played out. Characters were based on stereotypes: the haughty princess, the rash young prince, the greedy moneymaker, the knife thrower--we've seen these all before. As if that wasn't bad enough, the characters in the movie were completely static. sure, the princess overcame her initial detestation of the prince, but her character remained the same. and then, at the end.... back to where we started.

The story was a little lacking as well. I mean, sure, they had to adapt it from a video game, but it was still not a very good story. The ending, however, was very nice. The one thing that doesn't make sense... supposedly when the dagger is used while stabbed into the sand, it incurs the wrath of the gods. that's all very nice, but when the gods start destroying the earth, he just goes back in time to before the earth began to be destroyed. Did nobody think of that? Just a little, well... stupid. agreed?

But in the spirit of summer blockbuster action flicks, this wasn't a terrible movie. It had action, romance........ well that's about all it had, actually. but what more could you ask for? this is summer, the time for cheesy, irresponsible, knock-off action movies. As serious movie goers around the world shake their heads, the more "in it for the show" moviegoers will enjoy this movie and most likely find it entertaining. Is it the next Pirates of the Caribbean? not at all. The next GI Joe? almost. ladies and gentlemen, welcome the next Eragon.

Robin Hood: Not the hero you remember

When you hear "Robin Hood" what do you think? An outlaw who steals from the rich and gives to the poor, lives in the forest with a band of outlaws, is an extraordinarily good shot with a bow and arrow, loves Maid Marian, is a sworn enemy of the Sheriff of Nottingham, and dresses in green, perhaps? No exaggeration: NONE of these happened until the last 5 minutes of the movie. In fact, he wasn't known as "Robin of the Hood" until one of the very last lines in the movie. I'll venture to say that this is not the Robin Hood everyone loves.

I understand that this was meant to be a prequel of sorts, as at the end of the movie it says "And the story begins" or something of the sort. Nothing wrong with a prequel to a much-loved story, but, unfortunately, this wasn't a very good prequel. too bad.

I'll start with the positive: Ridley Scott did a fantastic job directing this movie. It had just the right amount of shaking, exciting camera movements and beautiful, depth-of-field "artsy" shots. I'm one to usually care, but the color correction was fantastic, as was the composition. Unfortunately, movies are more than pretty views.

What this movie had in execution, it lost in premise. The story was unclear, the characters undefined, and the conflict blurred. It made it clear that the chief adviser to the King of England was actually working for France, and that the King had to restore a nation turned against himself. That's all very nice, but what exactly does this have to do with Robin Hood? Answer: nothing. Robin Hood escapes from a battlefield, takes the crown of the dead king to his brother, tries, and then succeeds, to kill the false adviser, pretends to love, and then falls in love with Maid Marian, unites the country with a stirring speech, wins the climactic battle, and all seemingly without a motive.

As I said before, this movie had NOTHING to do with an outlaw stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Instead, it had to do with a fugitive in disguise running around with small group of friends winning battles for the King, without ever agreeing with or being recognized by the king. That's all very nice, but as I said, he had NO MOTIVE. at first, he ran from the battlefield to escape from confinement, he took the crown to the king so it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands, took a sword to Maid Marian's father because he promised his dying friend he would, fell in love with Maid Marian because he was pretending to be her dead husband (to evade taxes, may I add), won battles for the king for NO apparent reason, and was in the end outlawed for pretending to be a knight. Where's the personal conflict? there is none. he wasn't even outlawed until the very end of the movie.

Also, throughout the movie, there was a band of masked, seemingly outlawed, vagabonds that wreaked havoc on Maid Marian's storehouse. They came up throughout the movie, but never actually did anything past the opening scene. Maybe this is a setup for the sequel, but it just didn't make sense to have them throughout the movie.

About the acting.... hm.... Russel Crowe is very good at looking mournful and sad, I'll give him that, but he never had a real reason to be mournful and sad. I've said it before, but it's worth repeating that this movie had little to no personal conflict.

His father had taught him the phrase "Rise and Rise again. Until Lambs become Lions" and he found it written on his sword, but it never really had significance in the movie. There's no explanation as to what it actually means. another vague part of the movie.

Is it just me, or did Kevin Durand (Little John) grow about 2 feet taller?

Also, Robin Hood never had a defining characteristic. He wasn't a particularly good shot (as is the basic premise of the real Robin Hood story), he never stole from the rich to give to the poor (although he did steal from a church to give to his love), and he wasn't even outlawed until the very very end.

This is the kind of movie that would be good to be the first 15 minutes of the real Robin Hood story. Take for example Lord of the Rings. The very first scene when it tells how the ring came about, shows how the other races fell, and how Gollum got the ring? While this summary "could" have been made into a full-length movie as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, prior to even the Hobbit,  it doesn't merit a complete movie.  The same could be said for this movie. It is really more of the back story to Robin Hood than the actually story of Robin Hood, and while there were a lot of little things that a summary wouldn't have been able to capture, the little things could have easily and comfortably cut out. In short, this movie could have been reduced to the 15 minutes at the beginning of the real story, and it would have been very nice.

On the whole, while this movie isn't a complete waste of time (although it was a little to long), it is unfortunately unclear, undefined, and without complete definition. Why is it worth the time and money to see? it really is beautifully directed, and I think Ridley Scott would do good to direct more "artsy" movies. It has some good action, good acting, wonderful directing, but no real plot, conflict, or momentum.

Iron Man 2

Who doesn't love a good guy movie? Explosions, violence, action-while these things don't appeal to the classy type, they are staples of box-office hits. Most action movies, unfortunately, rely on only these devices to make their point. That's the bad news. The good news? Surprisingly, considering the writer (Justin Theroux) has virtually no track record as a writer (his ONLY other movie being Tropic Thunder,) Iron Man 2 actually had a decent plot.

By "decent," of course, I mean "completely unimpressive." The story itself wasn't half bad, but the dialogue was. I was sincerely hoping to hear some clever, quipping lines that the wonderful Robert Downey Jr. delivered so flawlessly in Sherlock Holmes, but I was just as sincerely disappointed. While there were some lighthearted laughs hidden in the movie, there was no chemistry between the characters. And by "no" chemistry, I mean "none at all." But not to be to harsh on Mr. Theroux, after all, it is only his second real production. Which begs the question... why on earth would Favreau hire him?

Luckily for Mr. Favreau, the writing wasn't this movie's only saving grace. While most of the actors did an average job, Downey Jr. delivered a better than expected--although quite falling short of his work in Sherlock Holmes--performance and is in my mind, the only good actor in the entire movie. What on earth happened to Terrence Howard? I thought he played his role in Iron Man 1 very well, and I was angry to see him replaced in the sequel, especially by Don Cheadle, who I thought butchered the part.

Acting aside, this movie had some wonderful graphics as well as some of the best action I've seen in a long time. Thankfully, Favreau cut down a lot of the sex and language from the first Iron Man, making this a more widely-appealing movie. Scarlett Johansson's action sequence was superb, as well as the final Iron Man vs. iron men battle.

The only flaw in the filming-particularly in the action-was how the camera stopped from time to time in order to present extended views of product placement and, lets face it, Scarlett Johansson. Favreau should have known better than to pollute his beautiful work with product placement.

Speaking of Scarlett Johansson, the biggest flaw in the plot was the Stark\Potts\Rushman love triangle. While it made it clear that Tony Stark was attracted to Rushman (as denoted when he remarked "I want one" after seeing her beat up his boxing trainer) it certainly didn't give it time to allow it to grow into anything more than physical attraction. Potts and Rushman didn't really either get along, or not get along, so there was no real definition emotionally.

In fact, almost the entire movie lacked emotional definition, as Tony never really started coping with his death, struggling with his relationships, or loosing his faith in himself. Come to think of it, there was no real emotional conflict in the entire movie. Remember what I said about Justin Theroux?

On the whole, this movie was not very impressive. The action was excellent, the graphics were what's to be expected, but the plot, acting, and dialogue (aside from Downey jr) was deplorable. If you're looking for a good time, this is your movie. If you want a content-based, character-driven movie like Dark Knight or Sherlock Holmes, I'm afraid you're going to have to keep looking.

Avatar: Enter the World

Oh my goodness... where to begin....

How about this for starters: $2.7 billion. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. it was released in Imax 3D AGAIN before it's quickly approaching release on DVD. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. Shortly after releasing it on DVD, he plans on releasing it on DVD AGAIN, this time in 3D. Is this enough money for James Cameron? no. This summer, the extended edition of Avatar will be released in 3D AGAIN in select theaters. Does this movie deserve all the hype, money, and acclaim that it's getting? don't be silly. of course it doesn't.

Now, I don't mean to bash this movie, it really was very good, but I have some serious problems. Here's 10 reasons why Avatar isn't all it's cracked up to be:

Number one, what's up with "unobtainium" the super-rock that Cameron's obviously corrupt version of humans are trying so hard to get? what's so special about it? "This is the reason we're hear. because this little rock sells for so-and-so billion dollars." Why? Why would somebody pay so-and-so billion dollars for the rock? what does it do? This lack of motivation makes the human side seem very weak and trivial. sure, they're powerful, but nobody really knows why they would use their power against the Avatars. too much vague subject matter makes for a weak story.

Number two, what was the significance of Jake Sully's brother? Sure, he was the one that signed up for the mission and trained to be an Avatar, but why not just have Jake be the one signing up? His whole character was based around a crippled marine that works himself to death because he's convinced that he can pass any test a man can pass. If he's so hearty and self-motivated, doesn't the fact that he didn't actually sign up weaken his character? I understand that Cameron wanted Sully to be in a position where he knew nothing about the culture or the Avatar, but character should always take precedence over story. Story can be tweaked to fit the characters, but characters can never be tweaked. No matter how strong the story is, weak characters will always make for a weak movie. don't believe me? Pirates of the Caribbean. Enough said.

Number three, this movie was way way way to colorful near the end. I'll admit, it had two or three super-dark spots, but the cinematography didn't flow with the story. Luscious green, piercing blue, vibrant orange.. these are happy colors. The movie was 70% happy, and 30% despair, where was the despairing colors?

Number four, Cameron's version of humanity was obviously corrupt and untrue. I refuse to believe that even in 1254 (although never said out loud in the movie, the date is on Sully's video log) humans will be so far gone that they will forcibly kill an entire culture to get a really nice rock. A lot of hype has been going around that this is supposed to parallel the colonists treatments of the Native Americans, but we certainly never went as far as to obliterate an entire culture, destroy an entire religion, and desecrate natural marvels to get at a rock. While humans are innately sinful, that doesn't mean that all humans except for a rare 4 or 5 are completely evil, greedy, selfish, and destructive.

Number five, what was up with the Na'vi's religion? Although Cameron may have intended it as a parallel religion to Christianity, there were some serious problems with it. First of all, Eiwa, their god, "only fought for the balance of life" and "didn't take sides." For one thing, in order to protect the balance of life, Eiwa would NEED to take a side, and for another thing, this is completely contrary to Christianity. Also, supposedly they could only communicate to their god by connecting their hair to the "holy tree", but when Sully prays for Eiwa to take a side, he is certainly not connected to Eiwa. In addition to this, the god is presented as not only a belief, but a real fact. When Grace (played by Sigourney Weaver) dies, her last words are, in essence, that their god is real, and that she is with their god. Not good.

Number six, the whole "I see you" thing was way way overplayed. After he learned it's meaning from Norm (played by Joel Moore) it could have possibly been brought up once, or MAYBE twice in the movie, but was referenced at least 5 more times in the movie. by the time he says it to Neytiri the last time, it has completely lost it's effect. Cameron could have done better than that, agreed?

Number seven, can the Avatars survive without their human counterparts?? This seemed to be apparent since their consciousness seems to oscillate back and forth, and when Sully begins to die, his Avatar follows suit, but when Norm's Avatar is killed, he seems to live on. What? how did that happen?

Number eight, everybody insists that this movie was 13 years in the making. not exactly true. While this movie took a titanic effort (no pun intended) to create, it was actually shelved for nearly 10 years while Cameron waited for technology to catch up. In other words, this movie took 3 years to make, and 10 years to wait. oops, nobody seems to have noticed. Maybe it's just easier to assume that this movie is more spectacular than it really is.

Number nine, what about the characters? so many opportunities to build strong characters were passed up in order to make a story. I'll say it again: A strong story with weak characters is a weak story. Emotions turned on a dime, and most of them were completely unfounded.

Number ten, the dialogue was lamentable to say the least. One character ONLY says "Come get some!" the entire movie. I was happy when he died, because I cringed every time he said it. Moods in the movie turn on a dime, especially Colonel Miles (Stephen Lang) who goes from loving to hating Sully in the space of about 3 seconds when Sully says he has a way to fix Miles' problems. What? why does this make him so angry? All the army characters said nothing but "army-esque" lines, none of the Na'vi said anything but Native American sounding lines, and, in short, if you were to watch the movie without dialogue, you would be able to guess every line spoken. No surprises, no clever one-liners, no character-building dialogue, nothing. I am disappointed.

So, with these 10 reasons why Avatar was not-so-great of a movie, why should you see it? in short, it was beautifully directed. If you're looking for pure spectacle, either see Avatar, or 2012. Cameron is a talented individual, he just apparently payed no attention to any other production elements other than graphics and direction. To summarize, this is an ugly movie standing on a weak foundation, covered by a oh-so-beautiful mask.

Imagine That: What if your daughters imagination... was the secret to your success?

Who doesn't love a fresh new director; the kind of director with vision, energy, no experience, no record of success, no feel for how movies work? Ok I"ll give you a hint: I don't. Why? Because directors such as Karey Kirkpatrick (director of--you guessed it--Imagine That) don't know what they're doing. Sure there's some, no, a LOT, of very talented independent directors. Look at Neil Blomkamp's District 9, for example. I don't mean to say that directors are limited by experience, but maybe some are just fast learners. Kirkpatrick is not a fast learner.

Enough idle words. this was a fairly entertaining movie, actually. The biggest problem I had was shot composition. I don't think I make any exaggeration when I say that EVERY shot in this movie was governed by the rule of thirds. I know, some people are more devoted to the rules of filmmaking, but it's always nice to actually see something in the middle of the screen, right? even over-the-shoulder shots--where the person being talked to is usually in the center, and the person talking is usually off to the side--were divided into thirds.

Acting... ah.... well Eddie Murphy certainly has a nod-worthy career, having taken a part in 220 films (in various rolls of acting, music, producing, etc.) Did he fail to entertain? certainly not. If there is fault to be found with this movie, he is certainly not to blame. What did I like about the acting? Two words: Daniel Polo. although he had a tiny part in the movie, he made me laugh more than any of Eddie Murphy or Thomas Hayden Church's capers and escapades.  After being in several notable TV shows (this being his only film role to date) I expect this kid to definitely be going somewhere. Hopefully he will get out of the dead-end TV career realm, but I wouldn't set my hopes to high.

What did I think about the story, you ask? wow... what a strange story. It centers around Eddie Murphy's chraracter's daughter's blanket's imaginary friend's financial advice. It's made clear that her imaginary friends are... well.... imaginary, and that the blanket isn't "needed" to come up with wise financial decisions, but the heck of it is that the blanket was always exactly right. What is this supposed to mean? was this a jab at a reference to a higher power? maybe an attempt at humorous random luck? maybe it was just stupid? I'll go with the latter. It was just stupid. I understand, if you took it out, the movie would have no content. I suggest they should have taken it out, and made a movie about something not-so-stupid. Perhaps something entertaining and believable. am I asking for too much?

I know, I complain a lot about movies, but to be honest, this wasn't a "terrible" movie, just a failed attempt at a very good movie, falling a little short of "hilarious", "clever", or "worth watching again." Thomas Hayden Church has a bright future, Daniel Polo has high prospects, Eddie Murphy has a bright past, and if you haven't guessed, neither Yara Shahidi nor Karey Kirkpatrick are going anyway. thank you, that is all.

Armored: To Protect And Serve Yourself.

Ok first off, I'd like to give kudos to Nimrod Antal (yeah, that's his real name) for making such a quality movie considering this is his first significant film, and for landing a gig as directing the anticipated Predators movie set to release in July. (btw, Predators will not be a reboot of the Predators series, it will be a sequel to the origional Predators, ignorning previous sequels and the Alien vs. Predator films.) With that being said, although this is a wonderful "professional debut" this was only a so-so movie, with so-so acting and a so-so plot.

Antal has a very "average" filming style. The kind of style used by directors that will probably never have a name for themselves. An experienced director will use emotions as a basis for choosing artful shots, but this movie, content aside, conveyed no emotion. The performances were reasonable, but not always convincing, and the acting partnered with the filmmaking made it difficult to feel inside the movie.

The entire premise of the movie was a very good idea. The struggle between what the protagonist felt was right and what he felt he needed to do for his family makes for a strong plot. Too bad it was spoiled by emotionless filmmaking. The lines between what the protagonist considered ok, and what he thought were wrong were intriguing. stealing millions from the government is ok in his eyes, but killing to do it is out of the question. why? he has no reason. just because it's wrong. Although from a Christian standpoint, it would have been nice to hear, from a filmmaking standpoint, this is important. It defines his character, and makes us question our morality. why do we do what we do, and refuse to do other things? for religious reasons? for practical reasons? whatever your answer is, knowing why you do something is more important that knowing that you do something.

The cast was almost entirely made up of actors accustomed to playing television rolls, small movie rolls, and supporting characters with the exception of Lawrence Fishbourne (Morpheus in the Matrix franchise.) As refreshing as it was to see these fresh new faces, there's a reason they aren't famous actors: they're not very good. They offered up a believable performance, but not an engaging or convincing one. Part of this might have been poor writing; even the best actors can't make bad lines sound good.

All in all, this was a cookie-cutter movie, with a predictably cookie-cutter ending. What so many filmmakers don't seem to realize is that endings do not have to be happy. Life isn't always happy, and a happy ending pasted onto a movie like this seems to be more of a superimposed image of how the director wants life to be than a reflection of how life is. I understand, people go to movies to escape, but within the bounds of reason, not every single ending to every single movie needs to be happy. It's ok to have a sad ending, because that's just how life works.

Although this movie had many setbacks, it was in no way a "bad" movie. It was mildly enjoyable, and a nice movie to see if you've already seen all the other current action flics. I'm excited to see how Antel's future movies turn out after he develops a style and a sense of emotion.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lighning Theif

When you think of really bad book/movie adaptations, what movies do you think of? Eragon? Inkspell?  Enter Percy Jackson & The Olympians. As a huge fan of the book, I was shocked at how bad, and blatantly disregarding of the actual story, this movie was. Important plot elements were completely cut out and replaced, to the extent that the entire premise of the movie was changed. As far as filmmaking goes, this wasn't all-in-all a bad movie, but as far as adaptation, this was honestly the worst book/movie adaptation I've seen in my life.

Was this movie a total waste of my time? No I wouldn't say so. Even I watched in horror as the story was brutally murdered before my very eyes, some very interesting imagery struck a chord or two with me. In particular, when they finally get to Hades, the floating objects had a very good effect on the mood of the entire movie, and offered a much-welcomed distraction from the story. The visual effects were for the most part good, but it only takes a few sub-par computer graphics to spoil the entire movie. Percy Jackson and the Olympians managed to just barely scrape by, as some of the graphics were truly lamentable.


Casting varied between perfection, and total disregard for the book, as most of the characters seemed fit for their parts, with the huge exception of Annabeth. Although books make it abundantly clear that she has silver hair and eyes, neither of them are done justice in the movie. Was this poor casting, poor production values, or just a poor directing decision, the character on the whole felt unrepresented.

On the plus side, it's good to see Sean Bean in a recognizable role for once.

As bad as this movie adaptation was, I think I would give them a second chance. If they can make a half-decent adaptation of the sequel, The Sea of Monsters, it just might be the franchises saving grace. Unfortunately, making any sequel at all will be difficult, to say the least. Many extremely important characters and plot elements were entirely left out and a very major character dies. Also, the stereotypical boy-gets-girl, everybody-lives-happily-ever-after ending probably means we've seen all the Percy Jackson we're going to see.

In a sentence: I was disappointed by how poor an adaptation this was, and, although it had it's moments, this movie was a disgraceful representation of the book.  should you go see it? I recommend you stay home and just read the book.

3D movie tickets: How much is too much to pay?

Well, as much as I love movies, I haven't been blogging lately because... well... I don't like spending $7 to see just any movie. And that's with the student discount.  I've only seen one movie in 3D (Alice in Wonderland), and although I understand it wasn't "true 3D," meaning it was shot in 2D, and then edited to be 3D in post-production, I found it to be little more than a novelty. an expensive one too. the price of an adult 3D ticket was around $15, and might have been as high as $16.50 in some cities at the time I saw Alice in Wonderland. That's the bad news. Unfortunately, I have no good news to offer because: the price of 3D movies is going up. That's right! Incredibly expensive entertainment just got MORE EXPENSIVE.

Now, I'd like to make it clear that while I enjoy the 3D technology, I would quite frankly rather save myself 5 bucks and see it in 2D, and quite a considerable amount of people agree with me.Do you think people will be willing to pay MORE to see a movie in 3D when a lot of them are already reluctant? I don't think so. Prices have been raised by as much as 26% in some theaters. in other words, a $15 ticket could cost almost $19. Although I'm an avid movie-lover, am I the only one who thinks this is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for 2 hours of entertainment? And Imax tickets are even more pricey, with ticket prices already around $17+ and who knows how much they'll cost after the price change.

I understand that 3D technology is very expensive, but raising the prices just doesn't work. the 3D glasses cost less that 50 cents, and while the 3D projectors are very expensive, people don't seem to realize that the same projector can be used for every 3D movie that comes out. In other words, if the 3D projector that costs $45,000 dollars and that has been payed off by the first movie or two it shows (don't think 3D movies earn enough to pay something that expensive off? Just ask James Cameron), is useful for an unlimited number of movies in the future. To put this in perspective, the price of 3D movies should be going DOWN because there is no longer an equipment expense to theaters that have switched to 3D, and with the wild success of Avatar in 3D, any respected theater has already made the switch.

Maybe I'm alone, but personally, $15 is a lot of money to pay for 2 hours of entertainment, and if the price is going up, it's just not worth my time. In perspective, seeing a 3D movie now would be like paying the theater minimum wage to show the movie, and that's for every single person in the theater. In summary, although 3D is a fun and novel experience, it's just that: a novelty. A novelty worth 7-9 more dollars than a non-novelty movie? I think not.

As a slightly opinionated individual, I would like to know what you guys think. Leave a comment down below! Even if you completely disagree with everything I say, I don't mind knowing why I'm wrong. thanks for reading, have a great Easter :]

Sherlock Holmes: Holmes for the Holiday

Sherlock Holmes... you know, for such a good movie, a director like Guy Ritchie seems like an unlikely suspect, his last movie being RocknRolla which earned a less than impressive $5.7 million. Never having even directed a movie that made much more than $30 million, you would expect his next venture to,putting it lightly, suck. Not so fast. Despite Avatar's undisputed prowess over the action-hungry box office, Sherlock Holmes managed to earn a quite respectable $207.9 million. Why is that? Elementary, my dear Watson: it's just plain good.

From the first time I saw the trailer for Sherlock Holmes in the summer, I patiently waited for it to hit theaters. Ignoring the wake Avatar had left behind, I ventured to try to see it opening night, which just happened to be Christmas. Almost needless to say, I was unsuccessful, but the first chance I got to see Sherlock Holmes, I fell in love. This being the second time I saw it, I was no less impressed, and quite possibly more intrigued than the first time.

Guy Richie's filming style is intuitive and precise, without seeming abstract or forced. This is what millions of filmmakers around the world are trying in vain to attain: shooting from the waist, and hitting dead center. What makes this movie stand out is his unique perspective, the way he frames characters, creates moods, and provokes emotions. If every director in the world could direct like Richie did, every movie in the world would be worth seeing.

However, even with Guy Richie's genius at work, it was Hans Zimmer's masterful score. No amount of angles, lighting, or performance could match the effect a score as wonderful as this one holds over this movie. Zimmer himself has managed to attain a remarkable variety in his works. Although he was made famous in his work in Gladiator, Pirates of the Caribbean, Perl Harbor, and the Batman franchise, his extensive resume includes movies such as Shark Tale, Frost/Nixon, The Simpsons Movie, Kung Fu Panda, and It's Complicated, and that's not to mention his part in the influential London band, The Buggles. A master at his craft, Zimmer creates a world so vivid, that visual information hardly needs to be seen in order to understand what is happening.

Ok, it's time for me to bash the bad stuff: why detective books such as Sherlock Holmes (which, by the way, the movie didn't adhere to whatsoever) are so much fun, is because the reader gets to try to solve the mystery. it's like a puzzle that is gradually being solved, and the viewer can realize what it's a picture of before all the pieces are in place. This movie didn't allow the audience even a sporting chance to figure out the mystery. Although the more major twists and plots could be anticipated, no logic could possibly be involved. Most of the various mysteries involved chemicals and specialized substances that are far outside of the spectrum of common knowledge, and while the grand scheme of things could be guessed at, no reason was involved whatsoever.

The bad news: while Richie, Downey, and Zimmer deliver an almost perfect movie, I can't help but wonder if it was a lucky stab into the dark, or skill on all three accounts. The good news: we can expect a sequel sometime in 2011. You should go see it as soon as it comes out. I'll see you there.

Oh, and one more thing: am I the only person that thinks Mark Strong (Lord Blackwood) looks strikingly like Steve Carell?

The Hurt Locker: You don't have to be a hero to do this job. But it helps.

My first thought when Kathryn Bigelow won the Best Picture Academy Award for The Hurt Locker was wow, she not only beat her ex-husband James Cameron and his $2.5 billion, chart topping Avatar, but also the heavy-hitting popular movies such as District 9 and Inglorious Basterds. And that's not to mention the indy-style films like An Education and A Serious Man the Academy favored last year by giving the Oscar to Slumdog Millionaire, as well as the Cinderella-story cliche of Precious, the Family movie stab made by Up, and the critical acclaim held by Up in the Air and The Blind Side.

I was a little afraid the Academy had picked one of those terribly boring, average, depth-less movies that are considered "art" by awards communities, instead of going with a good, deep, meaningful movie such as some of the other nominations. I was terribly wrong.

Hurt Locker was surprisingly well made, well thought out, and well acted, and completely overshadowed Avatar, Blind Side, and Up (The only 3 Oscar nominees I have yet seen.) Not one to get worked up about movies, I was glued to the edge of my seat.

The characters were unique and entertaining, but without falling into the cliche stereotypes Hollywood loves so much. The one problem I did have was one particular character that seemed to drift away during the movie. When the movie began, he was a joking, teasing comrade and friend with the other soldiers. Very soon, he became a disturbed man constantly thinking of death; both his own and other peoples'. This could possibly be a result of seeing his team leader die, but later in the movie, he became just another soldier who is angry about being injured, rather than wanting his life to end. Although he contributed greatly to the movie, some consistency would have added greatly.

The idea of a soldier who disarms bombs for the adrenaline rush to the extent that he stops caring about everything else is golden. The quote at the beginning of the movie, "War is a drug" seemed irrelevant until the end of the movie, when it all tied together. On the whole, this movie is a work of art from start to finish.


It was beautifully framed and filmed, showing Katheryn Bigalow's ability to capture characters by more than just cleverly placed lines and timed expressions, but by the way the walk, the way they look when nobody else is watching, the way they respond to actions around them, and the way they solve their problems. While the characters in this movie might not have been as eccentric or exaggerated as in most movies, they had a depth and a quality to them that no amount of acting or characterizing can provide.


This movie was a jewel of a war movie. Although I have seen very few of the Oscar Nominees, this one tops them all hands down. It's not just another action packed, stereotyped war movie, it's a work of art with a real depth most movies can only scratch the surface of. If you haven't seen this movie yet, get out there and watch it, you won't be disappointed.

Old Dogs: Sit. Stay. Play Dad.

Ah, the wonderful world of family entertainment! Cheesy one-liners, predictable endings, grimace-worthy acting--it's true, my expectations for family movies are below rock bottom. Was I thrilled, excited, and stimulated by Old Dogs? Not exactly. Pleasantly surprised? Yes, I would have to say so, because while Old Dogs is not the shining torch of the winter blockbusters, it is at least a brighter-than-expected ember.

I'll have to say, the acting wasn't half bad. Granted, Robin Williams should probably have enough experience to pull off just about anything by now, but everybody in the movie acted just well enough to exceed my expectations.

This is a difficult movie to take seriously, but I'll give it a shot: the story was lamentably predictable with few surprises and many cliche "forshadowing" aka "repetitive" jokes. Most smaller characters were taken from stocks that Disney would be ashamed of. For example, two reoccurring child-proofers had some of the most pathetic characters ever. One was characterized by not knowing what he was doing, and the other was characterized by eating peoples food. Now, as character traits, these aren't all so bad, but that was their entire character. To create a minor character, you need to start from a stock base, and add maybe 1 or 2 memorable traits. In this case, the traits were the entire characters.

Enough complaining: on the whole, I was actually entertained and humored by this movie. It was funny, although corny; emotional, although not exactly moving; and heartwarming.... no, scratch that. my heart was more "defrosted" than "warmed" by this movie, but they made a noble effort. As far as family movies go, this one is a jewel. As far as Spring blockbusters go, save your money.

The one problem I did have was it's use of rather mature topics to set up funny situations. For example: apparently Robin Williams' and John Travolta's characters go to Miami, get drunk, meet two women, and hook up. While this would be perfectly acceptable in a drama or comedy, mature topics such as this have no place in family comedy, where jokes should be based on things relevant to the target audience, in this case: children, and the parents that get dragged along.

In conclusion. this is a good, solid, entertaining family movie. If you're looking for something to take your kids to, or hang out with friends, this is a good choice. If you're looking for quality entertainment or deep, moving dramas, keep looking.

The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's still got it

 Let's take a short look at Peter Jackson's short but extremely impressive track record: Director of the now historic Lord of the Rings series: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, critically acclaimed; King Kong: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, critically acclaimed; the future Hobbit 1 and 2: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, already critically acclaimed; and... The Lovely Bones: drama, little-know, and certainly not critically acclaimed. Surprisingly, Jackson still delivers excellently in this new medium.

It's an understatement to say that this was a good movie. In fact, I enjoyed this movie more than any movie I've seen in a very long time. It was excellently, excellently shot, extremely creative, and intriguing to say the least.

Where to begin.... the story: This movie deals with some tough, brutal issues. It is based around a man who traps, rapes, and kills girls, hides the bodies, and moves to a different state every time someone gets hot on his trail. Although these subjects are dealt with very appropriately and maturely, they are not present in the least bit lightly. It's hardly a spoiler to reveal that the main character is, in fact, dead for almost the entire movie. The movie seems to be loosely based around her family attempting to find her murderer while she is in her own world "Between Heaven and Earth" filled with imagery from the real world. But, not surprisingly, there are no happy endings when the main character has already met her death.

The presentation of the movie is astoundingly well done, with massive use of imagery, sometimes confusing, but often very clever. In Susie Salmon's (The main character) "in between", the entire world is made of memories from her life, sometimes intertwined with what is happening in the real world. When her distraught father begins breaking bottles with ships inside of them (an obsession of the father brought up earlier in the movie), giant bottles with real-life ships begin to float and crash on her virtual ocean, with an astounding emotional effect. in fact, almost every aspect of her in between world is based around the real world.

But there's more to this movie than imagery and a good story: it comes equipped with a huge emotional force that I was not expecting from Jackson. Usually not an emotional moviegoer, I was moved by this story, and almost felt the characters desperation, frustration, fear, and unrest. I'm certainly not one to frequent the Drama genre, but this is one of the most powerfully emotional movies I have ever seen.

The only flaw with this movie would have to be the ending. I suppose it's the happiest possible ending for a movie where the main character has been raped, murdered, and stuffed into a safe in the first 15 minutes, but it left just a little to be lacking. While her family learns to cope with the loss after over 2 years, her sister avoids being caught by the same man, and the molester dies a brutally harsh death by falling down a cliff, I (the audience) cannot quite feel relief or a sense of completion.

On the whole, this was an most excellent film, and excites me to see what Jackson will do with his upcoming Hobbit movies. This movie left very little to be lacking, and certainly left me agape, moved, and, most importantly, satisfied. This movie comes with a very high personal recommendation from me to you.... so what are you waiting for? go see The Lovely bones while it is still in theaters!

Valkyrie: because Tom Cruise still can't act. Surprise!

I know, I know. Valkyrie is old news. Bear with me.

Is there anybody left on this planet that still thinks Tom Cruise can act? He can speak lines, maybe, but act? No. With that in mind, I didn't think Valkyrie was half bad. Granted, my expectations had been for a Nazi Germany action flick, as the trailers seemed to indicate, but in that regard, I was sorely disappointed, as this movie contained so little action, an occasional explosion was the best we get. Of course, being based off a true story, there's only so much a filmmaker can do, but some excitement would have been much welcomed.

About the characters... *sigh.* Most of the characters seemed to be stock characters, drawn off of previous movies, with a cast that didn't seem to quite connect. On their own, each actor was good for their roll, but each one created a different dynamic, and too many clashing dynamics made for a lot of weak characters. While Tom Cruise's character enjoyed the most screen time, his was one of the more poorly developed characters.

The plot was, to say the least, poorly executed. Things were never fully explained or quite clear, and the movie attempted to go in too many different directions at the same time. I can't elaborate any more on the problems with the plot, considering it is based on a true story, which the filmmakers seemed to be trying to make abundantly clear.

Aside from character and plot issues, it was a beautifully shot movie, although it relied a bit to heavily on "standard" shots. one scene in particular caught my eye: it shows a record spinning in the center of the screen, and while slowly zooming in, the camera begins to turn, until it is spinning along with the record, making the record seem to be standing still, and the needle spinning around it. While this was a creative scene, it held no significance. With an eye-catching scene such as that, the record should have been significant in some way, maybe brought up throughout the movie, or with a significant song playing. As it is, it was playing a famous Wagner song, which was, while inspiring, rather insignificant.

On the whole, the movie was excellently shot, but the severe flaws in the characters and plot development gave it a very weak foundation. If you enjoy dramas, this is a rather beautiful, if trivial, take on the politics of Nazi Germany, but if you are looking for a good, exciting, action movie, I'm afraid you'll have to look somewhere else.

Alice in Wonderland... whatever happened to Tim Burton?

As a huge Tim Burton fan, I have been waiting for around half a year to see Alice in Wonderland at midnight, and even arrived at the theater two hours early just to get good seats. Why? Because of Tim Burton. He's come a long way since Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but frankly, after being completely blown away by Sweeney Todd, I was expecting a little bit more from my favorite director, particularly when combined with his usual team including legendary film composer Danny Elfman and highly-talented Johnny Depp.

On the whole, the movie seemed a bit forced. It almost seemed as though production decisions were based on Tim Burton's past films, with very little relevance to the actual film. For instance, the trees had Tim Burton's trademark spiral branches, but it didn't add to the movie in any way, it was just decoration. While some 3D effects were surprisingly convincing, it seemed on the whole to be a novelty, as for most of the movie, I entirely forgot I was seeing it in 3D.

If there's one thing I love about Tim Burton's films more than anything, it's his vision. Unfortunately, his vision was highly disappointing in Alice in Wonderland. The characters especially disappointed me, particularly The Mad Hatter. after seeing posters, watching film clips, and previewing trailers, I was excited to see Johnny Depp back in his usual role, but I found his character confusing, inconsistent, and poorly executed. He delivered his lines so in such an average Johnny Depp way, I forgot it was supposed to be anything special, and often disregarded his character entirely. He slipped in and out of a lisp, sometimes took on a British accent and a deeper voice, and lost his voice when he yelled... sometimes.

Not a single character in the movie had an identifying personality characteristic. The white queen had her arms in the air much of the time, but not enough to form a character, the Knave of Hearts was only tall enough to look slightly disproportionate, Alice hardly even had a character, and the white hare slipped from indignant and demanding to docile and eager to please for no discernible reason.

But this movie wasn't a total loss. Tim Burton didn't fail to put in some of his classic macabre violence and cringes, as a monster gets his eye pulled out on-screen, a miniature Alice must cross a black, murky, river by stepping on the faces of floating, long-dead enemies of the queen (even stepping into the mouth of one), and the head of a monster is graphically severed and rolls down a flight of stairs, remaining in the background for several minutes.

A patch of humor here and there redeemed the movie on a whole, particularly the Mad Hatter's "Futawaker" near the end of the movie. Now and again, the 3D effects were used to great effect, making me wince and flinch from time to time.

On the whole, this movie failed to follow Tim Burton's masterful Sweeney Todd, or to live up to it's promising trailers and posters, but was it a waste of time and money? I'd say not. Like Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate factory, this is a far from perfect adaptation, but was still enjoyable, and i believe will become part of movie culture in the next couple of months. Not to be forgotten, but not to be awed, Alice in Wonderland is nothing more than an anteater in sheep's clothing: beautiful and intriguing on the outside, but ridiculous on the inside.