True Grit - bold talk with a one-eyed fat man

True Grit - (4 1/2 Stars)
Remakes, sequels and reboots. It seems that about 90% of everything Hollywood puts out is one of these, or maybe even a "re-imagining." With that in mind, the Coen brothers (directors of movies such as Fargo or No Country For Old Men) try their hand, but don't call it a remake or a reboot  with any venom in your tone. The Coen's "True Grit" goes back to the source material for its inspiration: the novel.

Having not read the novel myself, I can't say whether or not this version is closer than the John Wayne version. It's also been awhile since I've seen the older version of the movie. So, I'm mostly going to speak about how the movie stands on its own. It is important to always do this when it comes to any "re-movie," so that you aren't viewing the movie from a biased standpoint or expecting too much (or too little). How does the movie stand up? Very well. The Coen brothers have crafted an excellent western that the fits among the best of the genre and includes fantastic performances from many of its stars.

When her father is murdered, stubborn young Maddie Ross seeks vengeance by hiring a grizzled, old U.S. Marshal by the name of "Rooster" Cogburn to lead her after the murderer. Jeff Bridges brings his own surly take on Rooster, without trying to do a John Wayne impersonation and Matt Damon continues to demonstrate his versatility as an actor as LaBoeuf, a dandy of a Texas Ranger. Even Josh Brolin delivers in his relatively short screen time. But the real standout is Hailee Steinfield as the young avenger, Maddie Ross. She exudes a confidence and ease that would be expected of someone more than twice her age. This is spectacularly displayed early on when she negotiates (as she does so well throughout the movie) over some animals her deceased father had previously purchased. Steinfield was unfortunately snubbed (as was the entire movie) by the Golden Globes. It would be a crime against movies everywhere if she isn't at least given a nod at the Oscars. That being said, I fully believe she deserves to win.

Besides the phenomenal casting, almost every other aspect of the movie is executed perfectly. The scenery and cinematography are perfectly bleak and fitting of any of the best westerns. The dialogue is also funnier than most comedies I watched all of last year, without detracting from the overall seriousness of the movie. All in all, "True Grit" is the complete package and one of the best movies of 2010.
(110 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of western violence including disturbing images - 2010) (Netflix)

How to Train Toys for Inception

After what seems like an endless quagmire of mediocre or sub-par movies that I've been seeing lately, these are some of the best movie options of the year. There are two animated movies, both of which are wonderful for both kids and adults alike, and a movie that I may end up considering one of my personal favorites. I can tell you right now that I recommend that you check out all three of these movies. So, before I go ahead and make the actual reviews superfluous, I better just stop typing...


Inception - (5 Stars)
First thing I will say: this is the best movie I have seen all year. Second thing: This may be the best movie I have seen in a while. I am and have always been a huge fan of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. As soon as I see his most recent movie, I'm looking ahead to see what he has coming up. Memento was the first of his movies that I saw, and it blew me away. His takes on Batman have been equally brilliant (with the Dark Knight considered by many to be the best comic book movie out there) and The Prestige is one of my favorite movies of all time.

So what did I expect going in to Inception? Nothing short of brilliance again. I don't really want to go into what happens in the movie as it is definitely one that needs to be watched for oneself, but I will say that despite my really high expectations, it delivered way beyond what I had hoped for. The story is smart, engaging and a little bit puzzling (in a good way). The scenery/imagery is fantastic. There were several scenes in the movie where I was blown away. They were the kind of scenes that are iconic (some of which have, unfortunately, been in the trailers). Hans Zimmer also delivers a haunting, reverberating (literally) score that pairs wonderfully with Nolan's vision. Perhaps the aspect that works the best about this movie is its phenomenal ensemble cast. Every person, from Leonardo DiCaprio to Tom Hardy to Joseph Gordon-Levitt, fit perfectly into the puzzle without a piece missing or out of place.

I realize that I haven't really explained what the movie is about and for the sake of those of you who may be on the fence about seeing it, think of it as a con/heist movie that takes place within the mind. There's action, suspense, some funny parts and some real emotional moments as well. Definitely worth seeing (several times).
(148 minutes - Rated PG-13 for violence and action throughout - 2010) (Netflix - Dec. 7)


How to Train Your Dragon - (4 Stars)
When it comes to animated movies, I'll admit that sometimes I'm a little biased towards Pixar movies. That's not to say that I'll only watch their movies or that I turn my nose up at Dreamworks or other studios movies, it's just that when your track record is as good as Pixar's it's hard not to be jaded towards the competition. That being said, 'How to Train Your Dragon" is by far the best movie Dreamworks Animation has put out.


Based on the book by Cressida Cowell, "How to Train Your Dragon" follows a young viking by the name of Hiccup. He lives in a world where vikings and dragons are engaged in a constant battle against each other for existence. The vikings believe that all dragons should be killed on sight and the dragons, well...what would you do if you saw a big, hairy guy swinging an ax? However, when Hiccup encounters a young, injured dragon he begins to learn that things aren't so black and white when it comes to the scaly beasts.


"Dragon" has a pretty decent voice cast, smooth animation and a good story that makes Madagascar look even more like it was written by a group of chimpanzees (sorry, sorry...but it's true...Madagascar is a mess). It's also reinforces that not everything is always as it seems (or don't judge a book by its cover). Hopefully, though, it doesn't also give kids the idea to walk up to the nearest scaly reptile and attempt to pet it. Overall, "Dragon" is a solidly entertaining movie that both kids and adults should enjoy. It's not as funny as I thought it would be, but it's still a great time.
(98 minutes - Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language - 2010) (Netflix)


Toy Story 3 - (4 1/2 Stars)
Inception's challenge was all about whether or not Christopher Nolan could top his previous movies and How to Train Your Dragon's was whether or not Dreamworks could put out something decent and on almost on par with Pixar. Toy Story 3 probably has the biggest challenge of the three: How do you create a sequel, more than ten years later, to one of the most beloved franchises of all time? The movie itself is the answer to that question. Pixar has outdone themselves with Toy Story 3 by creating a movie that is both fresh and nostalgic and is a sequel that doesn't just retread old territory but provides a proper send-off for some of animation's most beloved characters.


Toy Story 3 picks up about 10 years after the last Toy Story (so, just about as long as it was in real life). Andy is getting ready to head off to college, and his favorite toys are starting to get nervous because they haven't been played with in a long time. Eventually, due to a mix up, the gang ends up in a daycare center. This provides the opportunity for a lot of new characters to be introduced. However, at no point does the amount of toys get confusing or detract from the main story.


Once again, sticking with my usual stance, I don't want to go into too much detail because I don't like spoiling what happens (hopefully my explanation above only covers what was in the previews). I will say that there were parts that I did feel where a bit rehashed or tired (although, I will admit that when I watched the movie I was in the midst of an annoying cold and was a bit more irritable about stupid stuff) but by the end of the movie I completely forgot about them and was fully engaged and emotionally invested in the story. Pixar shows that, once again, they are the masters of animated storytelling and that they know how to properly end a story as cherished as Toy Story.
(103 minutes - Rated G - 2010) (Netflix)

Avatar Primer - Invictus: The 9 Lovely Crazy Edge of Daybreakers Day

Well, since I will be gone all next week, I held back some reviews to make this special jumbo sized review. As you can see from the mouthful of a post title, there was quite the variety of movies. In the spirit of Clint Eastwood (who is represented in a movie this week) we have the good (Primer, Invictus, Daybreakers, 9), the bad (Valentine's Day, Edge of Darkness) and the ugly (Legion, The Lovely Bones). Stuck between them of course, are the mediocre (Avatar, Crazy Heart). Hope everyone has a good week, I know I will. New movie reviews will be up sometime around June 14-15.

*Primer – (4 ½ Stars)

I’ll start this review off with a warning: “Primer” is probably the most confusing 

movie I have ever seen. However, because of how intricately layered the narrative is, I wanted to watch it again after I finished it. “Primer” follows two young engineers who are trying to create the next big thing. What exactly they are trying to build? That’s debatable, but what they end up creating is a time machine (of sorts). Their venture into time travel results in an incredibly original take on the time travel genre.

One of the reasons “Primer” works so well is that it doesn’t lay everything out for you. It is a puzzle to be decoded and as a result it is definitely worth multiple viewings because it leaves many facets of story open to viewer interpretation (purposely). There are various articles and timelines out there to help decipher what occurs, and I do recommend checking them out, but only after you have watched the movie through at least once.

(Netflix) (77 minutes – Rated PG-13 for brief language – 2004)

Invictus – (4 Stars)

After spending almost 30 years in prison for opposing the apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) is released from prison and several years later is elected the first black president of South Africa. However, he still faces many tough trials in a divided post-apartheid South Africa. Looking to peacefully unite the White Afrikaners and the Black South Africans, Mandela turns to the Springbok rugby team, a longtime symbol of the apartheid.

“Invictus” focuses on these events as the basis for its story. We follow Freeman’s Mandela as he attempts to set up his new government and promote equality and eventually meets with the captain of the springboks, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and enlists his help. The movie is a well acted, uplifting story. Freeman has Mandela down to a ‘t’ and the story stays very engaging, whether you know how rugby is played or not. “Invictus” is a truly inspiring movie with a good message, despite your opinion of Nelson Mandela.

 (Netflix) (133 minutes – Rated PG-13 for brief strong language – 2009)

Avatar – (2 ½ Stars)

Going into a viewing of “Avatar,” probably the most hyped movie of all time, it is hard to do so with an objective mindset.  Everywhere you turn, someone has an opinion of “Avatar” be it good or bad. With this in mind I did my best to put aside outside opinions and just focused on the movie and my own perspective on James Cameron’s opus.

 

Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a paraplegic marine enlisted to journey to the distant planet Pandora where he will participate in the Avatar program, an interface that allows Jake to take control of a genetically engineered hybrid of Pandora’s native Na’vi people. Some want Jake to use his Avatar to help gain a rapport with the natives and learn their way of life, while others want him to gather military intelligence. The Na’vi are in-tune with their surroundings on a different level than humans have ever been. They literally possess the ability to plug in (via their extensive hair braid) to various plants and animals. However, situated directly below their tree home, is the planet’s largest deposit of unobtanium, the main reason humans are on Pandora.

I’ll start with what works. “Avatar” definitely does feature some of the finest CGI of any movie out there. If everything didn’t look so fantastical, the line between real and CGI would definitely be blurred. With that being said, it’s still CGI and severely overused. In my opinion, CGI should be used to complement the real effects, not be the entire movie. Make no mistake “Avatar” is all about how it looks. It’s definitely not about an original story, as “Avatar” borrows heavily from a lot of different sources (one can’t help but think of Pocahontas as one). Even the musical score seemed to borrow pieces from various other movies.

 “Avatar’s” weakest area is definitely the script. If it weren’t for the state-of-the-art special effects, I’d think I was watching a Sci-Fi SyFy channel original movie. It’s painful to hear some of the phrases that come out of these character’s mouths. This dialogue ineptitude really ends up hurting the character development as well. They seem to be more caricatures than characters. Cameron definitely seemed to dip into the well of stereotypical characters to fill out the story.

Is "Avatar" a terrible movie? No. Does it deserve to be the highest grossing movie of all time? Probably not. But, if I were to make a list of the worst movies of 2009, it would not be on it. The story, while not exactly spectacular, is still coherent and fluid and the CGI is second-to-none in most respects. In the end, “Avatar” is simply mediocre.

(Netflix) (162 minutes – Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking – 2009

Valentine’s Day – (2 Stars)

Following in the success of movies like “Love Actually” comes “Valentine’s Day,” an ensemble Romantic Comedy starring quite a long list of stars. I’m sure this works for getting people into the theatres, but for the story it makes everything drag a bit because there are just too many people. I will give them credit for at least tying everyone together in one way or another, but some of these extra characters could have been cut in order to focus on some of the more important character stories as they only really serve as “bridge” characters. Overall, “Valentine’s Day” is a pretty typical, politically correct and overlong romantic comedy.

 (Netflix) (125 minutes – Rated PG-13 for some sexual material and brief partial nudity – 2010)

9 – (3 ½ Stars)

Sometime in the future, the world has been rendered a post-apocalyptic wasteland due in part to mankind’s dependence on machines. The only creatures still stirring appear to be strange burlap dolls, each with a number designated them and “the monster.” “9” is a fun and inventive animated feature. It has a great voice cast, an interesting and cohesive story and wonderful, creative visuals. The movie is for an older audience, as there is some violence and some images that may be too much for younger kids.

 (Netflix) (79 minutes – Rated PG-13 for violence and scary images - 2009)

The Lovely Bones – (1 Star)

Susie Salmon is dead. She was murdered, she tells you, when she was 14. What follows in this movie, one would hope, is the tracking and catching of her killer and her family finding peace and coming to terms with her death. What actually happens? Not too much. The story starts out promisingly enough, but drags on endlessly as we follow Susie through the “in-between” as she watches her family deal with her loss. However, for whatever reason, we don’t really seem to connect to the characters due to the fractured storytelling. One “bright” spot is Stanley Tucci, who is unnervingly perfect as the neighborhood creeper who murders women out of some deep-seated need. It’s sad that the portrayal of the serial killer is the best part of this movie.

(Netflix) (135 minutes – Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving disturbing violent content and images, and some language - 2009)

Edge of Darkness – (2 Stars)

“Edge of Darkness” is Mel Gibson’s first acting gig since 2002’s “Signs.” One wonders what exactly about this script made him decide to come out of quasi-retirement. Gibson plays Boston cop Tom Craven, whose daughter is murdered in front of his eyes on the front porch. While the police think he was the intended target, Craven suspects that his daughter was caught up in something dangerous and sets out on his own investigation.

With a setup like this, one would expect “Edge of Darkness” to be a typical action revenge thriller. Instead, we are treated to a convoluted and poorly executed conspiracy picture. The movie is very low on character development and we meet a lot of different characters, some of which we never really understand who they are or what they do. What ends up resulting is a very sloppy movie that is not quite action, not quite drama and all kinds of slow-moving. I did discover that this movie is actually based on a BBC miniseries, which makes infinitely more sense. In a mini-series I could see characters being developed and the story taking shape in a much better way. “Edge of Darkness” is just a little too long and yet still not enough happens in it.

(Netflix) (117 minutes – Rated R for strong bloody violence and language– 2010)

Daybreakers – (3 ½ Stars)

“Daybreakers” is a different take on vampire movies. In the year 2019, most of humanity have become infected with a disease that turned them into vampires. As a result, humans are basically an endangered species and are hunted and farmed as a food source. But, there are some humans who claim to have found a cure. The movie does a lot of interesting things with vampire mythos that work (and some that are a bit over-the-top). There are also some interesting conclusions/comparisons you can draw from the situation of mankind in the movie.

Overall, “Daybreakers” is a pleasant surprise of a movie. For the most part it keeps a brisk pace, with only a few plot points and moments that drag it down. The actors all fit pretty well for their roles with Ethan Hawke playing the vampire with a bit of a conscience and Sam Neill as the vampire who definitely doesn’t have one (he also looks quite nefarious as a vampire).

(Netflix) (98 minutes – R for strong bloody violence, language and brief nudity – 2009)

Crazy Heart – (2 ½ Stars)

Bad Blake is a grizzled old country music singer who is prone to drinking and all around hard living. Jeff Bridges plays the alcoholic Bad in a sympathetic, likeable way but movie just seems to aimlessly follow Bad’s exploits for most of the movie before deciding to get to his potential redemption and rejuvenation. Maggie Gyllenhaal co-stars as a reporter who gets to meet the person behind the singer and helps him try to turn things around.

(Netflix) (111 minutes – Rated R for language and brief sexuality – 2009)

Legion – (1/2 Star)

In “Legion,” God apparently loses faith in mankind and decides to eradicate them. Michael the angel disobeys and goes to protect humanity’s only hope: the unborn son of truck-stop waitress. Angels act like demons, possessing people and spouting off expletive laced diatribes, and terribly cliché action sequences abound. Every single character in this movie is completely unlikeable and it doesn’t help that the plot really goes nowhere. “Legion” is one of those movies where you think the writer and director just wanted to “do some cool things and blow stuff up.”

(Netflix) (100 minutes – Rated R for strong bloody violence and language – 2010)

Upcoming Movie Reviews:

The Road

Leap Year

The Great Mouse Detective

Gran Education on Moon Parenthood

This week I again had a hard time deciding which movie would be my "pick of the week." I decided on "Moon" but it was so close, you should just watch "Gran Torino" while you're at it. Both are fantastic movies with Oscar-worthy performances from their leads (maybe a bit of carry over from last week). Rounding out the mix are two movies that ended up being pleasant surprises mostly in part to their wonderfully wrapped-up endings. I didn't quite have as many words in the titles this week to compose a proper title, but did the best I could with what I had (and an extra "on"). Also, for the first time, some of the movies are "Watch Instant" movies on Netflix (you can stream to your computer, game system, or other compatible device). I have denoted these movies with a ^.

Gran Torino – (4 ½ Stars)

Clint Eastwood is the epitome of a tough guy. “Gran Torino” sees Eastwood as aging Korean War vet Walt Kowalski, who still lives in his old neighborhood despite its change in residents and frequent gang activity.

After his wife passes it becomes apparent that Walt’s children are more interested in what Walt might leave them when he passes than getting to know him better. When Walt steps in and assists the next door Hmong family in their gang trouble, it sets off a change in Walt and the beginning of a friendship between himself and the family.

Despite Walt’s many flaws, he is an inherently likeable character and Eastwood brings a lot of emotion through his direction and portrayal. “Gran Torino” is another fantastic, emotionally-charged film from the master director.  

(Netflix)(116 minutes – Rated R for Language throughout, and some violence – 2009)

An Education – (3 Stars)

Jenny (Oscar-nominated Carey Mulligan) is a 16 year old with hopes of attending Oxford once she graduates with her father providing the biggest push. But when a chance meeting with the older David (Peter Sarsgaard) leads to more than a casual friendship, she begins to question her plans and direction in life.

I went into “An Education” with some skepticism, wondering what direction they would go in regarding the relationship between Jenny, the teen, and David, the older “playboy.” However, by the end, I was pleasantly surprised by overall direction of the film. Jenny receives quite the education (yes, I know!) from her experiences with David and his friends and learns some valuable life lessons.

(Netflix) (95 minutes – Rated PG-13 for Mature thematic material involving sexual content, and for smoking – 2009)

*^Moon – (4 ½ Stars)

I wanted to start this review off with a confession: I am a sci-fi fan. No, I don’t go to the extent that some people do (Dressing up, naming pets/children after characters, writing fan-fiction, etc.) but I am nonetheless a sucker for a good future/space story (key word: good). I realize that not everyone is as much a proponent of the genre that I am, so I take off my sci-fi hat and switch it out for a hopefully more objective post.

“Moon” takes place in the semi-near future. Earth has found a clean, renewable source of energy in Helium (He3) harvested from the surface of the dark side of the moon. Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) is the lone worker assigned to the Sarang mining station for a 3 year period. Sam is down to his final 2 weeks aboard the station, and it is clear from the start that it couldn’t come soon enough for the worn down astronaut. He begins to hallucinate and doubt begins to creep in as to whether he will get to go home after all and what is really going on at Sarang.

The movie is basically a one-man show (unless you count GERTY the robot, voiced by Kevin Spacey) and Rockwell does an excellent job channeling the loneliness and paranoia that Bell is experiencing. The more that he finds out, the more the tension builds. Clint Mansell’s (The Fountain) score perfectly compliments the action on screen and helps drive home the emotional impact of Sam’s inevitable decision regarding his status on the station. An intellectual sci-fi thriller that should appeal to more than just fans of the genre, as it is firmly rooted in the realm of possibility and not the extraordinary.

(Netflix)(97 minutes – Rated R for Language – 2009)

^Parenthood – (3 Stars)

Steve Martin is no stranger to the neurotic, yet loveable, father role. Whether it’s the “Cheaper by the Dozen” movies or “Father of the Bride 1 & 2,” Martin knows how to appeal to both the heart and the funny bone. However, before there was George Banks or Tom Baker, there was Gil Buckman. “Parenthood” follows the Buckman family and their parenting exploits. The movie maintains a decent balance of humor and heart, sometimes dragging a bit at times, but manages to overall stay true to its message and wraps everything up in a very satisfying way.

(Netflix) (124 minutes – Rated PG-13 – 1989)

Movies for this week:

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Watchmen

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

It’s Complicated

Body of Lies

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Zodiac Killer

As I previously mentioned, this week was a bit of a cheat. I’ve already seen Zodiac and was pretty sure I would like Sherlock Holmes. But then again I had not watched “Zodiac” with a reviewer mindset and I had not actually watched “Sherlock Holmes” yet, so it’s fair. With all that being said, I must admit I still have not finished Lawrence of Arabia or had time to watch “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (which is just as long as its name). I still have both movies from the library, so I should have them for next week. I will say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the first half of “Lawrence…” and I have seen “Assassination…,” but once again not with a reviewer mindset. Since I only watched two movies this week and enjoyed them both, I will write (and recommend) an extended review for both.

Zodiac – (5 Stars)

There is something that draws people into true crime stories. Turn on the news and you will probably find out about someone who committed some crime. More often than not you will also be “treated” to the details as well. But if the general public wasn’t interested in them, they wouldn’t be on television. I guess it is just human nature to be curious about the happenings of those around us. What crime really gets our attention better than that of a mysterious serial killer? “Zodiac” tells just that kind of story, that of the infamous Zodiac killer, who had California buzzing in the late 60’s and early 70’s. But where many true crime movies have failed, “Zodiac” succeeds in making the movie interesting and engaging, without being voyeuristic.

 “Zodiac” is a thoroughly fascinating, visually stunning movie. David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directs a great ensemble cast in this distinct three act crime procedural. The first distinct act of the movie follows the initial crimes of the Zodiac killer and his lust for attention, sending letters and ciphers to newspapers. We are introduced to the various law enforcement agents who will be investigating, as well as the hotshot newspaper writer (Robert Downey Jr.). On the outside looking in is Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist at the paper. The second act of the movie explores the criminal investigation into the Zodiac killer and the third, and final, act follows Graysmith as he sets about writing a book about the identity of the killer and his own investigation that leads him to do so.

 The movie stands out in all the little things it does right. The movie is about a serial killer, but the murders are never shown in an overly graphic way. The murders are shown, but aren’t the focal point of the movie. The characters are all extremely interesting, especially when you think about the fact that they are real people. Some of the relationships between the characters are fictionalized, but this is used more as a way to bridge the narrative. Finally, the pacing of the movie is just right. The movie covers a long period of time, which can sometimes doom a movie to being more of a montage, but “Zodiac” never misses a beat while it moves throughout the life of the investigation. It is this combination of skillful direction, on target acting, and attention to detail that makes “Zodiac” a cut above the rest when it comes to true crime dramas, and many other movies. (Netflix) (157 minutes - Rated R for Some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images - 2007)

Sherlock Holmes – (4 ½ Stars)

Sherlock Holmes has the distinction of being the most portrayed character in film. Despite this fact, a lot of people have probably not seen a Sherlock Holmes movie but still have various preconceptions as to how he should be portrayed. Enter Guy Ritchie’s aptly titled “Sherlock Holmes.” Advertised as a new spin on an old character, Ritchie enlists Robert Downey Jr. to take on the mantle of the World’s Greatest Detective. Along for the ride is Jude Law as Watson, the straight man to Holmes’ eccentricities. While the case Holmes’ works could have been better, the atmosphere, characters, and intricacies of the film more than make up for it.

            
One of the biggest fears I had going into watching the movie was that they would “modernize” Holmes and Watson. The trailer only exacerbated this with its quick cuts, fast music, and pithy remarks. Once I was able to sit down and watch the movie, my fears quickly subsided. Downey plays Holmes with a fantastic wit and energy with Law’s Watson playing off him perfectly. Many envision Watson as the fat, bumbling sidekick to Holmes’ stiff, intellectual detective. However, as evidenced in the source material, Watson was a trained, fit army doctor and Holmes definitely something of an eccentric. The movie does have a bit of a “modern” feel to it in little touches here or there, but not to the extent portrayed by the trailers.

            
Sherlock Holmes’ latest case pits him against an aristocrat who delves into the mystical arts in his quest to unite and strengthen London under his power. The case itself is probably the weakest aspect of the movie. In the end the character story as a whole is satisfying, and the mystery is wrapped up well. This take on Sherlock Holmes is not for everyone, but most will probably at least enjoy it as a very good action/mystery. (Netflix) (128 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material - 2009)

Don't forget to get your opinion heard in this month's poll and check out the previous post about changes to the blog.

Movies for this week:

Lawrence of Arabia (for real this time)

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (Maybe)

The Brother’s Fantastic Sister’s Law-Abiding District Doctor

This week I have decided to institute a small change in the format by adding an expanded review for what I will dub my “Must See” pick of the week. I’ve denoted the movie* and attached a longer, more in depth review. Once again, I found a movie^ that I had previously forgotten to review, so it is included as well.

Law Abiding Citizen – (2 Stars) – After he loses his family, and the legal system fails him, a crafty engineer (Gerard Butler) decides to exact his own revenge on the killers, the legal system and the entire city. Butler chews up the scenery as the psychopathic avenger, while Jamie Foxx plays the unlikeable lawyer protagonist. Lack of believability and apathetic characters make this strictly a “popcorn movie.” (Netflix) (109 minutes - Rated R for Strong bloody brutal violence and torture, a scene of rape, and pervasive language - 2009)

The Brothers Bloom – (4 ½ Stars) – Two eccentric confidence men target an affluent recluse as their final score. The Brother’s Bloom is a wonderfully inventive con movie full of beautiful scenery and rich characters that keep you interested and invested all the way through to its conclusion. (This was the close runner-up for “Must See” Pick). (Netflix) (113 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Violence, some sensuality and brief strong language - 2008)

Doctor Zhivago – (4 Stars) – David Lean’s cinematic epic about a Doctor/Poet caught up in the Bolshevik Revolution.  Omar Sharif’s emotionally portrays Zhivago as an individual, a beacon of hope, in the harsh reality of a communist Russia. The movie also stands out in its beautiful landscapes and breathtaking cinematography.(Netflix - currently unavailable) (197 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Mature themes - 1965)

^District 9 – (3 ½ Stars) – 20 years ago an alien ship comes to a stop over Johannesburg, South Africa. On board is a race of malnourished, insect-like aliens. Now, the stranded extraterrestrials are forced to live in slum-like conditions and are seemingly not allowed to leave. The movie starts out very strongly with an intriguing premise but slowly devolves into a decent, but ordinary, action movie. The main character remains unsympathetic until the very end, and the dialogue also leaves something to be desired.(Netflix) (112 minutes - Rated R for Bloody violence and pervasive language - 2009)

My Sister’s Keeper – (2 Stars) – Anna (Abigail Breslin) was born as a “designer baby” to help combat her sister Kate’s leukemia. But as she grows older, Anna begins to have second thoughts about giving herself over to the painful procedures that help prolong her sister’s life. What could be an interesting movie that tackles relevant moral questions is reduced to a run-of-the-mill family drama that, from what I gather, is not faithful to its source material. The movie is full of unnecessary voice-overs, painfully drawn out “dramatic” moments, forced emotion, and a ridiculous amount of “inaudible dialogue.” (Netflix) (110 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Mature thematic content, some disturbing images, sensuality, language and brief teen drinking - 2009)

*Fantastic Mr. Fox  – (4 ½ Stars) –

Fantastic Mr. Fox is not your typical “family movie” in much the same way that Wes Anderson isn’t your typical director, or Roald Dahl your typical author. These quirks are what make everything work so well. The movie fits in well with the rest of Anderson’s filmography, utilizing the typical dry humor and dysfunctional family unit. It also stays very true to the heart of Dahl’s literary works.  However, Dahl and Anderson are not for everyone.

                The movie, in some cases, has been advertised as another of the yearly crop of animated (although to be fair, it’s actually stop-motion) movies that come out every summer much to the delight of kids and the dismay of parents. Despite these perceptions, (Roald Dahl is the author, after all, of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory) most children will more than likely not be as entertained by this movie. In general, the parents will in all likelihood find more they enjoy. Like the book it is based on, Fantastic Mr. Fox is for older children. That’s not to say that it contains content objectionable to young children, but rather most of what happens would probably go over their head. The movie just doesn’t have the prevalent silliness of most family movies that draws the younger crowd in.

If you are a fan of Roald Dahl or Wes Anderson, you will enjoy this movie. It is the cohesion of Dahl’s source material and Anderson’s witty filmmaking that really drives Mr. Fox to be exactly as its title denotes: fantastic. However, if you are looking for some light, family fluff…this is not it.(Netflix) (87 minutes - Rated PG for Action, smoking, and slang humor - 2009)

Movies For Next Week:

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Everybody's Fine

The Blind Side

Lawrence of Arabia

Zodiac

...All the rest - March 22

The Time Traveler's Wife - (3 Stars) -  A librarian (Eric Bana) inexplicably time travels, much to the chagrin of his lover (Rachel McAdams). A surprisingly charming movie as long as you don't give yourself a headache over-thinking the time travel mechanics involved and focus more on the character story. (Netflix) (107 Minutes - Rated PG-13 for Thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality - 2009)

The Boys Are Back - (4 Stars) - A great performance by Clive Owen as a man who must raise his young son by himself after the untimely passing of his wife. A very good movie with fantastic cinematography (filmed in Australia).(Netflix) (104 Minutes - Rated PG-13 for Some sexual language and thematic elements - 2009)

Fido - (4 1/2 Stars) - The classic story of a boy and his dog -- if in fact that dog is actually a zombie. The movie is full of great tongue-in-cheek zombie humor. It bends some of the 'zombie rules,' but never in a way that damages the story.(Netflix) (92 Minutes - Rated R for Zombie-related violence - 2006)

Funny People - (4 Stars) - A comedian (Adam Sandler) who is diagnosed with a terminal disease hires a younger, struggling comedian (Seth Rogen) to be his assistant and sets about making things right in his life. Judd Apatow delivers another drama/comedy about the important things in life. A warning, despite it's redeeming qualities, some may find it too vulgar for their tastes.(Netflix) (146 minutes - Rated R for Language and crude sexual humor throughout and sexuality - 2009)

Marley & Me - (4 1/2 Stars) - Genuinely funny and an all around enjoyable movie, especially for those who have ever owned a dog, but definitely not limited to those that have. Even through all of its zaniness, it never seems cheesy or contrived.(Netflix) (110 minutes - Rated PG for Thematic material, some suggestive content and language - 2008)

(500) Days of Summer - (4 Stars) - As the movie states, "this is a story about boy meets girl...not a love story." Great performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel highlight this unique, quirky movie. The movie really shines in its presentation and in all of the little details throughout.(Netflix) (95 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Sexual material and language - 2009)

The Informant! - (4 Stars) - Matt Damon gives a fantastic performance in this dramatized version of the true events surrounding the highest ranking whistle-blower in American business history. A very well-written movie that is both funny and intriguing. Along the same lines as "Shattered Glass," although quite a bit 'goofier.' (Netflix) (108 minutes - Rated R for Language - 2009)


Movies for this week (subject to change due to time/lapse in interest):
Where The Wild Things Are
Capitalism: A Love Story
New York, I Love You