The Superman Fighter

Alright, here are two very different movies: an Oscar nominated movie based on a true story, and an animated Superman movie. I enjoyed both, but there's really no comparison between the two. I've also been tweaking my list of favorite movies for last year. The hard part is that any movie released later in the year (November or December) doesn't get released on DVD for a couple months into the next year. So, once I finally see all of the Best Picture nominees I will create my list. Until then...

The Fighter - (4 Stars)*

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts who has always lived in the shadow of his older brother Dicky's professional boxing career. Managed by his mother (Melissa Leo) and coached by Dicky (Christian Bale), Micky's time spent practicing is more about reminiscing on Dicky's accomplishments rather than actual training. However, things begin to change after Micky meets Charlene (Amy Adams), who pushes Micky to go after the things he wants.

"The Fighter" is a good inspirational story, with just enough boxing to appease fans of the sport, but with more of a focus on the family of characters and story around the boxing. Wahlberg shines as the lead Micky who is torn between his new girlfriend, his family and boxing and Christian Bale earns his Oscar with every bit of screen time he has. The cast as a whole is very strong which helps make the movie, focused on characters, such an enjoyable treat. The fact that it's based on the true story of boxer Micky Ward's early years boxing makes all the more entertaining.

(115 minutes - Rated R for language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality- 2010) (Netflix)

All-Star Superman - (3 1/2 Stars)

What if Superman was dying? That's the premise in the latest of DC's animated feature "All-Star Superman," adapted from the very good Grant Morrison story. After taking a super-sized dose of solar radiation by flying too close to the sun (all set up by Lex Luthor, of course), Superman discovers that his cells have begun to break down. So he sets about making everything right in his world, including his relationship with Lois Lane. But just because he's dying, doesn't mean he has it easy.

The story and art is adapted well and really captures the essence of the original comic story while jettisoning some of the story bits that felt out of place or extra. As a whole, the story is full of action,  classic villain encounters and as much poignancy as you're likely to get out of a comic book. I'd recommend this highly to anyone who has read the story, is a fan of the character or comic books in general.
(76 minutes - Rated PG for sequences of action and violence, language including brief innuendo, and some sensuality - 2011) (Netflix)

Get Unstoppable!

The theme for this post seems to be "based on a true story." Both of the movies are in one way or another based on a true person or event. In each case the movies are a good blend of truth and Hollywood embellishment, albeit completely different genres.

Unstoppable - (3 1/2 Stars)*
Some action movies are so predictable and formulaic, that they end up being quite enjoyable. This is "Unstoppable." Denzel Washington is the veteran railman worried about his job's future, Chris Pine is the rookie fresh out of training paired with him. But, the movie doesn't start with them. First the story has to be set up, the problem established. This comes in the form of a lazy, overconfident conductor. In fact, the movie really could have been over after 5 minutes if this guy had done his job. Alas, there's no fun in that and the train gets a rollin'.

From the beginning of the movie onward, I more or less predicted everything that was happening. But it was because of this predictability that it was so fun. Denzel reteams with Tony Scott, who's last movie also involved Denzel on rails in the Subway thriller "Taking of Pelham 123." This time around, the suspense and action are a lot more enjoyable. The story is based on an actual event that happened in (wait for it Ohio friends...) Walbridge, Ohio. Of course the movie transports the story to Pennsylvania and drums up the suspense and action.

As I've already hammered home, everything about this movie is predictable from Denzel's acting/character to Tony Scott's directing (the classic "flash flash slow-mo dramatic" shot) to basic tenets of any action movie you'll ever see. But, that's exactly why it works. It's a fun, sometimes tense, and always action-packed movie that won't disappoint. Unless, of course, you're expecting to be surprised.
(98 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of action and peril, and some language - 2010) (Netflix)

Get Low - (3 1/2 Stars)
Robert Duvall is Felix Bush, a hermit of local repute who decides to throw a funeral party for himself that he'd like to attend while alive. He turns to the local (and struggling) funeral home run by the slightly dubious Frank Quinn (Bill Murray) and his young partner Buddy (Lucas Black). Bush, however, has quite the reputation around town, the specifics of which change depending on who is telling the story. These stories are exactly what Felix is hoping people will share at his funeral party, but it's his own story he knows he must tell at some point.

Robert Duvall and Bill Murray shine in their respective roles. Both roles are familiar for each actor with Duvall often being cast as the cranky old codger and Murray as a sardonic swindler, but that doesn't diminish their performances in any way. The story is light and whimsical at parts, like a folk tale, but with a darker edge to the story just below the surface that comes to a head by the end. "Get Low" is a great story that is equal parts humorous and touching that delves into the idea of atonement and forgiveness.

Felix Bush did actually exist (as Felix Breazeale) and did hold a funeral party in 1938, but the real reasons for doing so were unknown. As is usual with Hollywood adaptations, character connections and motivations are also tweaked for the sake of the story, but the heart of everything remains true.
(103 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some thematic material and brief violent content - 2009/2010) (Netflix)

127 Hours - The Importance Of The Buddy System...

127 Hours - (4 1/2 Stars)*

I'm always fascinated by movies that are based on true stories. Some movies truly do capture actual events, while others can only claim vague inspiration for their events (I'm looking at you Open Water). "127 Hours" is probably going to be one of the most factually accurate movies you'll see based on true events, which makes it even more of an emotionally charged movie.

Aron Ralston (James Franco) is a twenty-something engineer who enjoys hiking, climbing and any other outdoor activity you can think of. One weekend he decides to head to Blue John canyon to enjoy the weekend, but does so without telling anyone where he is. After a brief encounter with some other people, Aron goes off on his own and becomes trapped when a boulder he is using to climb down with gives way and pins his arm at the bottom of the canyon.

This movie is effectively a one-man movie. Aron encounters a few people and hallucinates/remembers others, but the focus is entirely on him. James Franco's performance is what makes or breaks this movie, and he does not disappoint. His performance as Aron is definitely deserving of his nomination for an Oscar (if not deserving of a win), and is his best to date. Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later) also does a fantastic job with directing. If this story didn't have the right actor or director, it could easily have been boring or too sensational.

Most people know how the story ends, but I'll still remain purposely vague on the specific details about the climactic scene towards the end except to say that it is definitely graphic and realistic. That being said, Boyle doesn't film it in a way that is going shock value. It is a part of the story, but not the centerpiece. The real story lies in the emotional struggle of Aron Ralston.

(94 minutes - Rated R for language and some disturbing violent content/bloody images - 2010) (Netflix)

full disclosure: I stole the review subtitle from my wife.

Me And The Distance Conviction

Have a lot of movies coming up, so I'm going to try to churn out a couple of posts this week and next. Here we have an overlooked drama, an overlooked coming-of-age story and a "should be" overlooked romantic comedy.

Conviction - (4 Stars)*

A well acted, emotional true story of how far one person was willing to go to free her brother. Hillary Swank and Sam Rockwell give award-worthy performances as the  Waters siblings torn apart by a false conviction for murder. The story does a good job of drawing the viewer into the lives of the Waters. The movie is also paced well and is suspenseful enough (despite being a true story) to keep you wondering about the case. Melissa Leo (this year's Academy Award winning Supporting Actress) has a small, but integral role as well.

(107 minutes - Rated R for language and some violent images - 2010) (Netflix)

Going The Distance - (1 1/2 Stars)

Garrett and Erin (Justin Long and Drew Barrymore) meet in New York and quickly begin dating. However, Erin is only an intern and soon has to move back to California forcing the two to start a long distance relationship. "Going The Distance" takes this premise and creates an unfunny, crude "romantic comedy." I put both words in quotation marks because there wasn't much romantic or funny about the movie. Most jokes are  along the lines of awkward situational humor or some crude remark or joke from one of the couple's friends. If I wanted to end this review with a one-liner that sums it up, I'd say to keep your distance from this one.
(102 minutes - Rated R for sexual content including dialogue, language throughout, some drug use and brief nudity - 2010) (Netflix)

Me And Orson Welles - (3 Stars)^
Orson Welles was one of a kind. Equal parts brilliant and egocentric, Welles is responsible for Citizen Kane, a movie that makes many "Top Movie" lists. But, "Me And Orson Welles" focuses on (and fictionalizes) an earlier time in Welles' life. It also doesn't follow Welles, but rather 17-year-old Richard Samuels (Zac Efron). The movie uses Orson Welles' landmark production of Julius Caesar as a backdrop for a coming-of-age story.

The movie has its moments, but is overall a bit slow. Being a fictionalized account of a true event also makes it hard to determine what really happened and what was invented just for the story. The real star is Christian McKay as Orson Welles. His performance is superb and his presence is felt even when he isn't on screen. Overall, an interesting watch, but one that doesn't leave a lasting impression apart from McKay's Welles.
(114 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sexual references and smoking - 2009) (Netflix)

^Netflix Watch Instantly

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)

The Social Town

The Town - (3 Stars)
Ben Affleck stars and directs this predictable but enjoyable crime movie where, once again, we are tasked with following and tend to find ourselves rooting for the bad guys instead of the good guys. . Of course, this isn't really the kind of movie where good and bad are black and white anyway. "The Town" felt like shades of "The Departed" meets "The Outsiders" meets any movie about robbing banks. It didn't blow me away, but I enjoyed it. This was mainly due to the fact that despite it doing nothing new, everything, from the acting to the writing to the directing, is executed really well. The movie gets bonus points for featuring some scenes at Fenway Park (and tons of wicked awesome Boston accents).
(125 minutes - Rated R for strong violence, pervasive language, some sexuality and drug use - 2010) (Netflix)

The Social Network - (4 Stars)*
Everyone and their mom seems to be using Facebook these days. I'm not trying to exaggerate (well, I'm slightly exaggerating). But what's the story behind "The Facebook?" Well, David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin have the strange, sordid (well, slightly sordid), and partially fictitious answer in their movie, "The Social Network."

The movie is an engrossing, character driven tale that follows Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) from a messy break-up, through Harvard and on to the eventual founding and expansion of the most popular social networking site currently online. The movie doesn't have a lot of action, since it revolves around the founding of a website, so some won't find much appeal. However, Fincher really has a gift for pacing his movies and keeping things moving.

In all honesty, I was reminded a lot of the little seen "Shattered Glass," with its focus on an interesting, but not well liked main character and the people in his life that he interacts with. Most of these interactions are not very positive. In fact, most will sympathize with his best friend and co-founder Eduardo (Andrew Garfield, who everyone will get to know soon as the new Spider-man) who slowly finds himself less and less a part of Facebook.

The biggest theme to me that resonated throughout the movie was a sense of tragic irony. Mark founds Facebook, at least according to the movie, as a way to get back at a girlfriend who dumps him. Along the way he alienates himself from many people and loses friends. Mark eventually finds himself the creator of the biggest social networking tool whose sole purpose is keeping up with and making friends, and yet he doesn't seem to have any friends of his own.
(120 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug and alcohol use and language - 2010) (Netflix)


Note: I highly recommend checking out Shattered Glass if you haven't seen it: Netflix

Ramona, Knight and St. Cloud (Attorneys at Law?)

Well, finally a batch of movies in which I can recommend every one. Each one was enjoyable in its own way and I even brought back my * to denote my must watch movie of the batch. I haven't been using it because lately it's been pretty obvious which ones to watch and which ones not to (as in they mostly stunk). I haven't updated in a bit as I still feel like I'm catching up from the holiday season and not quite in a rhythm yet. Hopefully things should get going again soon.

Knight and Day - (3 1/2 Stars)
After watching the trailer for "Knight and Day," I wasn't too thrilled to see it. I usually enjoy Tom Cruise, but Cameron Diaz is a completely different story (I mentioned my dislike for her briefly in my previous review of The Green Hornet). However, I was pleasantly surprised with the over-the-top action/thriller. The movie from the start seems to wink at the audience and acknowledge that it's going to be a goofy, but action-packed, ride which is why it works. A movie that purposely attempts being ridiculous is always better than a movie that doesn't try and ends up that way due to poor writing or acting. This is a great example of a good popcorn movie that you know not to take too seriously and just enjoy.
(109 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of action violence throughout, and brief strong language - 2010) (Netflix)

Charlie St. Cloud - (3 Stars)
Went into this one with an open mind and I was rewarded with an enjoyable experience. The movie, though starring Zac Efron, is not a romantic comedy or teen romance movie. There are elements, very slight, but overall the story focuses more on loss. Overall I found "Charlie" to be pretty likable and engaging. Granted, at some parts it got a little strange or overly sappy (and one or two "suspend your disbelief" moments as well), it was still definitely worth watching.
(99 minutes - Rated PG-13 for language including some sexual references, an intense accident scene and some sensuality - 2010) (Netflix)

Ramona and Beezus - (4 Stars)*
I remember (vaguely) reading and enjoying the Henry Huggins books, and in turn, the Ramona books. I was also a big fan of the Ramona TV series that ran in the 90's starring Sarah Polley as Ramona. So, I had some lofty expectations for this new incarnation of Ramona and I was not disappointed.

From the start, if you were a fan of the old TV series, you need to distance the two and not try to make comparisons. It's the same with any remake/revision: don't try to compare it with the old one, just watch it and judge it on its own merits and not how it stands up to its predecessor. With that being said, I really enjoyed Joey King's Ramona. She was funny and quirky and definitely brought to life the character very well (with many memorable lines). Selena Gomez, who I was really worried they'd use too much because of her star power, gets about as much screen time as Beezus should. The books were written awhile ago so the movie takes some liberties with modernizing which I think is probably shown most in Beezus' casting.

"Ramona and Beezus" is basically what one would expect: a funny, sweet and enjoyable family film. But it also delivers more than that as a solid retelling of the classic Ramona stories with a solid cast. The movie is genuinely funny as well, not just for kids, but for adults as well. For some it might seem sappy or sentimental. But those who find it to be too much for them, probably aren't the people who enjoy this type of film anyway (or they are just trying to exude a little too much machismo).
(103 minutes - Rated  G - 2010) (Netflix)

Transformers: A Creation Cop Out

With Christmas coming up, I haven't had a chance to watch as many movies. Here are the few that I have gotten to, although 'Transformers' is from a while back (one I forgot to review):

Cop Out - (2 Stars)
There are plenty of buddy cop action comedies out there, including one of my favorite movies, so Cop Out already starts itself from a bad position. Add in the fact that this is the first time Kevin Smith is directing something he didn't write, and things are not looking any better. Had Smith written and directed this, it might have fared better as I've enjoyed some of Smith's previous movies, but not all of them by any means. This movie is going to be added to the "not so much enjoyed" list.

The movie starts funny enough with a good mix of visual and verbal humor from leads Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan but then nothing really happens. The story, which is never top focus in this type of movie, is pretty weak and the laughs drop off dramatically once the main arc of the story picks up. I ended up finding myself bored more than laughing. There wasn't even that much action to pick up the lack of comedy.
(107 minutes - Rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violence and brief sexuality - 2010) (Netflix)

Creation - (2 1/2 Stars)
Paul Bettany does a wonderful job with his very emotional, human portrayal of Darwin. Most times when people think of Darwin, they focus on his theory and not on what lead Darwin to his theories. Creation instead makes an interesting focus on Darwin's religious beliefs and the conflict he felt with his newfound discovery. But, it's not without its faults. Creation is another movie that builds well, but falters near the end. Creation, like many movies that dwell in the realm of emotions, built up but never hit that perfect end note.
(108 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some intense thematic material - 2009) (Netflix)

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - (2 Stars)
After the very successful first 'Transformers' movie, it would have seemed that Michael Bay could only improve on the flawed but fun movie. Instead, like many people predicted, Bay created a mess of a sequel. There is simply too much going on for a movie that should know that it's more about giant fighting robots than complicated exposition. It's too long, too tedious and too ridiculous, and that's hard to do when you are already expecting to see giant, transforming robots.

The first entry into the Transformers series wasn't great by any means, but it was at least more than an excuse for Michael Bay to blow stuff up and overcomplicated mythology. Okay, it probably was just an excuse for Michael Bay to blow stuff up, but at least (unfortunately) it made me interested in seeing the second one. Now the only reason I want to see the third one is to see whether or not the train completely derails or gets back on track. Just don't expect me to head to the theatre to do so.
(150 minutes - Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action violence, language, some crude and sexual material, and brief drug material - 2009) (Netflix)

Secretariat: A Horse (and movie) of a different color

Secretariat - (3 1/2 Stars)
Whenever I watch an "inspirational sports film" I always go into the movie skeptical. It can't be helped. How many movies like Secretariat out there recycle a similar sports story and, despite the fact that they are based on true stories, still utilize the same tired plot points? There are many. So, going into Secretariat, I had my concerns.

For one thing, this movie is about a horse and not a person. Horse racing isn't exactly at the top of my list of "Must Watch" sporting events. Secondly, perhaps the biggest concern, I knew how the movie was going to end, or rather, how the story ends. My concerns weren't allayed at first. The movie starts as you would expect, with a dramatic voice-over quoting something or sharing an anecdote complete with your typical dramatic sports story music (compare soundtracks to sports movies sometime, they are quite similar). But where Secretariat goes from there is much better than I expected. In fact, it delivers a very entertaining story that, while following the exploits of a horse, also has a very human aspect to it in the story of the people who owned and trained and rode Secretariat.

The cast is top notch. Diane Lane does a pretty good turn as the tough, not-going-to-back-down Penny Tweedy nee Chenery and John Malkovich is always entertaining, and does a great job bringing his charisma to the cast. As for knowing how the movie ends, "Secretariat" still does an excellent job of building and maintaining suspense throughout the movie. I found myself several times questioning what I knew to be true. In the end, "Secretariat" delivers a well-acted, solidly entertaining inspirational sports movie. While it's not groundbreaking or anything particularly new, it's definitely worth a watch.
(123 minutes - Rated PG for brief mild language. - 2010) (Netflix)

The Last Greenberg Apocalypse

In a move reminiscent of Christopher Nolan, I have some movie reviews that are out of chronological order with my other posts. I watched them all before I watched Inception (but I mentioned at the beginning of that review, referring to an "endless quagmire of mediocre or sub-par movies"). Nothing that stands out in this bunch, unless being very bad stands out.

The Last Song - (1 Star)
Without even putting the DVD into the player, this movie had two strikes against it: Nicholas Sparks and Miley Cyrus. Some will probably say that it's a little harsh/biased to go into a movie thinking that. Trust me, in this case, it's not. "The Last Song" is another typical Nicholas Sparks movie that includes all of his usual gimmicks. The acting gets pretty bad at some points in the movie, especially the first introduction between Miley Cyrus' character and her eventual love interest, Liam Hemsworth, where it literally felt like Miley was reading cue cards behind his head. Probably enjoyable for younger teenage girls, a demographic to which I obviously don't belong.
(107 minutes - Rated PG for thematic material, some violence, sensuality and mild language - 2010) (Netflix)

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse - (2 1/2 Stars)
A follow-up to the previous Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. As someone who has read the source comic book, I can say that it plays like a mediocre adaptation. It doesn't really change much or bring anything new to a story that was just kind of okay to begin with. Still enjoyable if you're looking for an animated superhero movie, just nothing special.
(75 minutes - Rated PG-13 for violence and brief sensuality - 2010) (Netflix)

Greenberg - (2 Stars)
Instead of being awkwardly funny or awkwardly touching it's just awkward. The film is more of a character study in that it basically follows Ben Stiller's character, Roger Greenberg, who's neurotic and often socially inept. I wasn't a fan of Noah Baumbach's previous movie, "The Squid and the Whale," but I enjoy his contributions on Wes Anderson's movies (then again, that might just be due to Anderson). Stiller does do a great job with the role, but it's not enough to make the otherwise aimless movie worth watching.
(107 minutes - Rated R for some strong sexuality, drug use, and language - 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)

The Survival of Temple's Iron Hood

Here are a couple more movies I've watched recently. It's a pretty mixed bag with mixed results as well. Temple Grandin is from a few weeks ago (forgot to include it before), but the other 4 I just watched this week and most are relatively new releases.

Temple Grandin* - (4 Stars)
A touching, and wholly interesting look at the life of one of the leaders in humane livestock handling who also happens to be autistic. Won the Emmy for best Made for TV movie (it was on HBO), as such it is not rated. It is basically the equivalent of a PG movie along the lines of Finding Neverland (no real objectionable content but not really interesting for younger kids). (103 minutes - NR - 2010) (Netflix)


Survival of the Dead^ - (1 Star)
George A. Romero has officially lost his touch with zombie movies. It's a good thing "The Walking Dead" starts on AMC on Halloween night (10pm) or else there would be nowhere to turn for good zombies anymore. I have four words to summarize how bad this movie is: zombie riding a horse. Oh yeah, and he uses digital effects instead of makeup effects (see my review of Zombieland if you really want to know more about how I feel about zombie movies) (90 minutes - Rated R for strong zombie violence/gore, language and brief sexuality - 2009/2010)(Netflix)


Iron Man 2  - (4 Stars)
Great follow-up to the original. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one. I like that they are building up to a big team-up movie (The Avengers), but they are forcing too much information into the Iron Man story that could just be saved for the actual Avenger movie. As a side note: I thought Sam Rockwell stands out as being perfectly annoying as Justin Hammer, Tony Stark's business rival, whereas my wife just found him annoying. (124 minutes - Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language - 2010) (Netflix)


Robin Hood - (2 1/2 Stars)
Ridley Scott, who apparently lives to make epic battle movies, brings his style to a Robin Hood prequel tale. Some of the changes to the mythos work, others are just confusing. I found myself liking some parts and hating other parts of this movie. Overall, the movie is a bit long and convoluted (too many extra characters, some of which are probably set-up for a potential sequel) and probably would have been better had it not been about Robin Hood. (140 minutes - Rated PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content - 2010) (Netflix)


Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths^ - (2 1/2 Stars)
Not the best and not the worst of the DC Animated movies. Standard comic book fare that is at the very least an entertaining popcorn watch. (75 minutes - Rated PG-13 for action violence - 2010) (Netflix)


*Recommended Pick of the Week
^Netflix Instant Play

Oh, The Movies I've Watched...

Here is a (mostly) complete list of the movies I have watched since I last posted (in July). Some of them have brief fragments attached to them, as I was in the process of reviewing them. At some point, I would like to come back and expand on them (at least the ones worth expanding on). In any case, here are the movies I've watched over the past 2-3 months (in no particular order, although it's kinda-sorta in the order I watched them):

Alice in Wonderland – (3½ Stars)
Everyone knows the story, or at least bits and pieces, of “Alice in Wonderland,” whether you’ve seen the Disney cartoon or one of the various live-action versions or read the books. Enter Tim Burton and his love for remaking movies with his own spin (Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd, Planet of the Apes…). What happens when you let Mr. Burton, whose movies often evoke strange and gothic-esque atmosphere, handle Alice in Wonderland? A better than expected, fresh adaptation of the wonderfully unusual Lewis Carroll stories.
(108 minutes - Rated PG for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar - 2010) (Netflix)

Dead Alive – (3 Stars)
One of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen with over-the-top gore effects, cheesy and hilarious slapstick humor and lots of other strange happenings. The MPAA rating for the R-rated version says it all: an abundance of outrageous gore.
(97 minutes - NR - 1992) (Netflix)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – (4 Stars)
A pretty decent adaptation of the penultimate Potter book. As with all of the other movies, some liberties are taken to keep it consistent with the others. The movies have taken an upswing starting with "Order of the Phoenix" (my favorite of the movies) and "Half-Blood Prince" that hopefully will hold up into the two-part finale. Although, any Potter movie would be better than the train wreck that was "Goblet of Fire."
(153 minutes - Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality - 2009) (Netflix)

The Wolfman – (2 Stars)
A remake of the Lon Chaney version with pretty good casting. This version is more of an action movie than a horror movie but the problem is: it’s a very slow action movie. The characters lack any real emotional depth, which is integral to this movie really working. Although, the soundtrack has shades of the original, which is a plus.

Brothers – (3 Stars)
A tense, unsettling and sometimes even heartbreaking movie that shows some of the potential extreme effects of war.

Sunshine Cleaning – (3 ½ Stars)
Quirky dark comedy full of great characters with a focus on the importance of family.

Kick-Ass – (2½ Stars)
Interesting enough premise, but a poor execution. I didn't care at all what happened to any the characters, which isn't exactly great for a superhero movie (yeah, I know it's not supposed to be a 'typical' comic book movie).

Shutter Island – (3 Stars)
Great atmosphere, building suspense mounts to a disappointingly predictable ending…or is it?

The Crazies – (3 Stars)
A respectable entry into the infected / ”zombie”/crazy-person horror genre. Creepy and foreboding, without being an unnecessarily violent slasher movie.

Green Zone – (4 Stars)
A solidly entertaining political thriller that has the look of a Jason Bourne movie, without actually being one. The movie is a fictionalized account of the search for WMDs. Some may find it “too political,” but I viewed it as enjoyable fiction.

Green Lantern: First Flight – (3½ Stars)
Animated re-telling of Green Lantern Hal Jordan’s origin story. This is a good movie for people gearing up for next years theatrical Green Lantern movie who want a basic understanding of the GL universe.

Batman: Under the Red Hood – (3½ Stars)
A decent adaptation of a very good Batman comic story arc. This is probably not the best story for people new to Batman, but it does its best to fill in the uninformed. The screenwriter is actually the same person who wrote the original comic, so it's interesting to see the changes the author makes to his original source material. Most of the changes are for the better, but some just seem unnecessary.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid – (3 Stars)
Funnier and more enjoyable than I expected. The movie does seem drawn out at times (which isn’t good when the movie is only 90 minutes to begin with). I haven’t read the books myself, but I assume most kids would enjoy this if they liked the original stories. If not, they can always read the books again (Yea for reading!).

The Book of Eli - (3 Stars)
I find myself usually drawn to post-apocalyptic movies of this type for some reason. I think it has to do with wanting to see how people react and stand out in a world that is starting over without rules or other preconceived notions. Eli is just a slightly better than mediocre attempt at this. The movie is pretty slow at most parts, only speeding up for the rather dull (and expected) fight scenes. There are definitely some interesting aspects of the movie, but overall not much here.

She's Out Of My League - (2½ Stars)

While funny at times, the movie is mostly a pretty typical comedy that I guess would be the male equivalent of a 'chick flick.' It kind of feels like a B version of a Judd Apatow movie. Jay Baruchel is likable enough as the lead.

Letters to Juliet - (1 Star)

A painfully dull, cliché ridden romance movie that meanders onward for what seems an eternity (figuratively of course, the movie is only 105 minutes), making all the predictable stops along the way. It even has a groan-inducing ending that I saw coming a mile away.

An Inconvenient Truth - (1 Star)

A movie about Al Gore...who happens to be talking about global warming. Not a very engaging documentary, and an even less engaging subject. Would have been more interesting with the focus off of Gore (and no, my opinion is not based on any particular dislike of Al Gore or the concept of Global Warming).

Youth in Revolt - (2 Stars)
Michael Cera stars as himself (ok, not really...but he's basically always the same character). Having been unlucky in love in the past, Cera sets up an alternate bad boy persona to impress a new girl and mayhem ensues. Not particularly funny or clever, just more of your typical Michael Cera fare.

Probably missed a few, but I will add them as I find them. Also, I will more than likely try to at least put out a full review here and there. I have passes to see Secretariat, so I will definitely post a full review for that one, since it is new to theatres.

John the Night Road Stalker: In Rome!!!

Finally, after quite a long hiatus, I have some new movie reviews. I've had a lot going on and just haven't had the time to getting these reviews finished and posted. They've been partially completed after I watched each movie, but now here they are. Part of the reason I didn't post was also due to not watching as many movies (nothing coming in, starting to watch "Fringe" again). However, now there should be a pretty steady stream of movies coming in (and maybe a few theatrical reviews as well!)

*The Road – (3 ½ stars) – 

“The Road,” based on the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, is a bleak vision of a post-apocalyptic American wasteland. The story follows a man and his son as they trek the wasteland in search of food and hope for a place that is free from all of the destruction. The movie is fairly faithful to book, however some character chemistry is lacking until the end of the movie, which does take away from the movie since most of the story emphasizes the relationship between the man and his son. I also found that the young actor who played the boy was quite annoying (more than I remembered the boy being in the book). Overall the movie does an excellent job of adapting the book although, at the same time, you really could just read the book.

(Netflix) (111 minutes - Rated R for some violence, disturbing images and language - 2009)

The Night Stalker – (3 Stars) – A television movie that kicked-off a subsequent series, “The Night Stalker” is the supernatural precursor to “The X-Files.” The story follows the exploits of the great character of Darren McGavin’s Kolchak, a newspaper reporter, as he tracks down what he believes to be an actual vampire preying on young women. The movie is a bit dated, but still a lot of fun. There is a second movie and the series, however it was short lived, but there was another an attempted resurrection a few years back (to no avail). Also, for those not familiar with the name Darren McGavin, he is the dad who finally relents to getting his son a Red Rider BB gun in “A Christmas Story.”

(Netflix) (74 minutes - Not Rated/Television Movie - 1972)

Dear John – (1 Star) – Chances are that if you are sitting in on “Dear John” you are either the intended audience or were dragged there/coaxed into renting it by the intended audience. Either way, expect the expected. As is standard in a Nicholas Sparks book-to-movie adaptation, we have our typical boy meets girl story full of bad acting, annoying characters and plenty of clichés. You can definitely tell that Sparks is a man trying to write a woman character because they always turn out terribly two-dimensional. By the way, I checked with the intended audience (two teenaged girls and one twenty-something girl): they didn’t like it either.

(Netflix) (108 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some sensuality and violence - 2010)

When In Rome – (3 Stars) –“When in Rome” is a romantic comedy that doesn’t take itself seriously and doesn’t require you to. Starring Kristen Bell (who is most know from her turn as Veronica Mars on CW) and Josh Duhamel (mostly known for being Fergie’s husband), as the couple of interest. They meet at a destination wedding in Rome near a famous fountain of love. The movie includes some funny bit parts from comedians Jon Heder, Danny DeVito, Will Arnett and Dax Shepard (Bell’s real-life love interest). Overall the movie is pretty predictable but remains enjoyable.
(Netflix) (91 minutes - Rated PG-13 for some suggestive content - 2010)


Upcoming Reviews:
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (for real this time)
The Wolfman (2010)
Dead Alive


Some potential movie reviews currently in theatrical release:
Grown Ups (definite review incoming, I have free passes)
Toy Story 3
Inception

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