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)

The Assassination of Precious Lawrence: The Squeakquel

It would seem, after looking over the movies watched this week, that the theme is “breakout performances.” Each movie contains either a new or career-defining performance at the center of each narrative: Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious,” Peter O’Toole in “Lawrence…” and Casey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James…” All three were nominated for Academy Awards. Unfortunately, however, none of them won. In all cases, they were bested by other actor’s in career-defining roles. Sidibe was beaten by Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side.” O’Toole had the poor luck of going up against Gregory Peck in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Lastly, if you’ve seen “No Country For Old Men,” you know it would be pretty tough for Casey Affleck to get noticed in the shadow of Javier Bardem’s performance as the deranged Anton Chigurh. In any case, bad luck aside, the performances are truly amazing and should at least be rewarded with a viewing. (I guess in order to keep with the theme, we'll just consider the "Chippettes" as the break-out performance in "Alvin and the Chipminks: The Squeakquel.")

Precious: Based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire – (2 ½ Stars) – Clareece “Precious” Jones is illiterate, pregnant with her second child, and stuck with her abusive mother until an opportunity to attend an alternative school presents itself as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Newcomer Gabourey Sidibe plays Precious with an emotional intensity that makes it seem as if she has been acting for quite awhile, where in fact this is actually her first movie. Based on a true story, it’s hard to believe, let alone stomach, what happens to Precious. The movie does have an uplifting message to it, but it doesn’t shine through the rest of the grime as much as one would hope. (Netflix) (109 minutes – Rated R for Child abuse including sexual assault, and pervasive language -2009)

Lawrence of Arabia – (4 stars) – Based on the true exploits of T.E. Lawrence during World War I, “Lawrence of Arabia” is an epic that only David Lean could accomplish. Peter O’Toole, in his breakout performance, brings a full range of emotions to the conflicted Lawrence who is caught between two worlds and allegiances. As is the usual in a Lean movie, the scope and scenery of the movie are breathtaking. (Netflix) (227 minutes – Rated PG - 1962)

*The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford – (5 stars)

In general, whether intentional or not, people are always trying to classify things. Whether it’s music or movies, books or video games, everything always has to be defined. However, more often than not, we may come across media that defies conventional labeling. So, in response to this, new labels are created such as RomCom, Dramedy, Bromance and Mockumentary (to name a few). But even then sometimes our best creative inventions aren’t enough to categorize a movie. “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” is just such a movie.

Since the movie revolves around a famous outlaw and takes place in the 1800’s, most people would be quick to slap a “Western” sticker on the cover and call it a day. But, in doing so, it would be doing the movie a great injustice. I enjoy a good western every now and then, but not everyone would share my enthusiasm, and would end up putting “Jesse James” back on the shelf where they found it. I’m not going to invent a new portmanteau, but considering this movie a “character study” would probably be the best I could come up with.

Brad Pitt plays the infamous Jesse James, and is devilishly suited for the role. He plays him as both a sympathetic family and sociopathic anti-hero. James is a man of whom paranoia pervades. Casey Affleck is the Brutus to Pitt’s Caesar, playing the part of Robert Ford. Affleck plays Bob Ford perfectly awkward. Like the star-crossed kid who finally gets to spend time with his idol, but is unsure quite know what to do with himself once he meets him. Always lurking in James’ shadow, he doesn’t seem to know whether he wants to “be like [Jesse] or be [Jesse].”

The movie’s score is a haunting piece of work by the duo of Nick Cave and Warren Ellis that has quickly become one of my favorites. It manages to capture the intensity and tragedy of the situation and players involved. The direction, by relative newcomer Andrew Dominik, has the maturity of a seasoned veteran. The cinematography also manages to capture the harshness and beauty of the time period. “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Ford” has a very deliberate pacing to it as well. The viewer is given time to examine and observe each character and their actions. In the end it is this perfect combination of elements that combine to make “Jesse James” a superb piece of cinema. (Netflix) (159 minutes – Rated R for Some strong violence and brief sexual references - 2007)

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel – (2 Stars) – Alvin and company return in an all new adventure, but this time they aren’t the only singing chipmunks on the block. This movie is basically everything it is advertised to be. If you liked the first one, you will most likely enjoy this entry. If you can’t stand the sound of high-pitched pop tunes, you’re better off watching something else. No surprises here. (Netflix) (88 minutes – Rated PG for Some rude humor – 2009)

Movies for this week:

Gran Torino

Watchmen

An Education

Moon

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

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)