Double-A Reviews

Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-24T01:51:00.001-05:00

This very well may be the most fun movie to come out this Summer.

Captain America: The First Avenger harkens back to classic adventure films that are rarely—if ever—made today. It feels more Indiana Jones than Saving Private Ryan, to its credit. It's not even attempting to reach the hyper-realism of The Dark Knight, which does the film a service. Too often today do we get dark, gritty films that teach us the lower limits of humanity, when we truly need an uplifting tale that shows us the very best within ourselves.

Captain America is remarkably family-friendly. There's little more than a "hell" or "damn" thrown in, and almost no on-screen blood. It's refreshing to have a modern superhero film that goes back to the made-for-all-ages heart of the original comics—and still with enough depth to keep the adults just as entertained as their kids.

Chris Evans was an odd choice to play Steve Rogers, mostly because he had already played The Human Torch—another Marvel hero—whose personality is the polar opposite of his character here. And yet, here he completely reverses his usual acting persona, playing the ultra-idealistic, honor-and-respect-driven Captain America perfectly. He feels completely genuine in every single scene, and he owns the movie entirely.
Of special note is the bogglingly real "skinny Steve Rogers" camera/CG/probably-magic effect that makes Chris Evans look like an actual skinny short guy in the scenes before he is physically transformed into a super-soldier. (did I just invent the word "bogglingly?" Maybe. Cool.)

The supporting cast is surprisingly good. Hayley Atwell plays Peggy Carter with a sharpness that evokes similar hard-edged comic characters like Lois Lane. She doesn't feel forced into the plot like other superhero love interests, and actually has a believable chemistry with Steve.

James "Bucky" Barnes is the secondary character that's given the most depth, despite the fact that he gets a bit less screentime than Peggy, Erskine, and Phillips. He's got just the right amount of tough attitude, depth and likable comedic timing. He's also a great action hero character. More than anything, however, it's his friendship with Steve that really makes Bucky remarkable here. They feel like brothers, and it really helps to personalize the movie. For fans of the comics who know Bucky and his history, seeing him—and specifically the events that affect him in the movie—is a special treat.

The other side characters, including the scientist Abraham Erskine, Col. Chester Phillips, Iron-Man's-dad Howard Stark, and the rest of Cap's team known as the Howling Commandos (never named in the film), are all well-acted and plenty-enjoyable to watch.

The antagonist, Johann Schmidt—The Red Skull—is the very definition of a power-mad evil villain. He's so incredibly perfect in his archetypal portrayal that he and Cap are the perfect balance, as well they should be.

The action in this film is exactly how comic fans always imagined it would be: stylized, slightly unrealistic (in a good way), and extremely cool. There's nothing quite like the glee you get when Cap throws his mighty shield into a Nazi and it bounces back into his hand. It's sheer comic book magic.

The movie isn't without a few problems. There's a framing storyline that's a bit underwhelming, and the final moments of the movie act as more of a setup to 2012's The Avengers, rather than rounding out this particular story itself.
While this film is the very definition of good, honest fun, it's not quite on the level of perfection that Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade mastered. Then again, not being as good as the two best Indy films isn't really saying very much.

In the end, Captain America is an awesomely fun movie. It's definitely one of Marvel Studios' best, and may go down as one of the best superhero films to date.

9/10

HP

2011-07-15T23:57:00.001-05:00

In honor of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 being released today, I'm going to write a summary/retrospective on the entire film series. I've already written reviews for films 1, 2, and 6, but the rest will all get reviews in the next week. My review of Deathly Hallows Part 2 is actually already done, but I'm saving it until all the others are finished. Once they're all done, I'll post the series retrospective with links to all eight reviews.

Update (6/30/11)

2011-06-30T01:17:00.003-05:00

New reviews:
Daredevil
Green Lantern
Green Lantern: Emerald Knights
X-Men

I felt like delving into the Green Lantern and X-Men franchises this month because of their current films in theaters. Daredevil was just a random whim that came out of nowhere.
Next up is Transformers: Dark of the Moon, just as soon as I get the chance to go see it. Otherwise, the next few films will probably be X2, Tangled, Thor, and whatever else I get around to.

Upcoming reviews:
Green Lantern: First Flight
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Juno
The Lion King
The Matrix
The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix Revolutions
Mulan
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Pocahontas
Quantum of Solace
Serenity
Spider-Man
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 3
The Spirit
Sucker Punch
Superman: The Movie
Superman II
Superman III
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
Superman Returns
Tarzan
Troy
X2: X-Men United
X-Men: First Class
X-Men: The Last Stand
Tangled
Thor
Wonder Woman (2009 Animated)

Movies I have yet to see this year:
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Captain America
Cowboys and Aliens
The Muppets
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Sherlock Holmes 2

Green Lantern

2011-06-17T00:00:00.023-05:00

For those who don't know, I am a huge fan of the Green Lantern character and comics. I've read the original story upon which this film is based multiple times, and enjoyed it greatly. I wish I could say the same of the film itself.

The basis for Green Lantern is this:
On the distant planet Oa, the guardians of the universe created the Green Lantern Corps, a group made up of 3600 individuals recruited from across the universe. Using their green power rings—technological weapons of incredible strength, fueled by their user's willpower and imagination—they act as intergalactic policemen, keeping innocents safe from various threats.
Hal Jordan, an overly cocky fighter pilot, has now been recruited as the first-ever human Green Lantern. Meanwhile, Parallax, a massively powerful and evil being made of pure fear, is on a course headed for Earth. Hal must deal with his own personal fears before being able to successfully wield the ring's power and defeat Parallax.

The bizarre thing about this film is that it gets so much of the Green Lantern universe right, but doesn't make it interesting. Hal Jordan's story is somehow robbed of its emotional resonance from the comics, despite the fact that most of the story is exactly the same. It's the little moments that are missing; the ones that show Hal as a compelling character. The same goes for every other character in the film. The audience is simply never given a reason to care about any of the main characters.

The best scenes on an emotional level are the romantic bits between Hal and his former girlfriend, Carol Ferris. While Carol is perhaps shown too often as nothing more than a support for Hal, her scenes are genuinely sweet. One moment in particular is notably hilarious, and contains the best genuine laugh in the entire movie.

The script in this movie is awful. Every single line is terribly bland. Hal is somewhat funny, but it seems as though most of that humor was due to Ryan Reynolds' improv skills and comedic timing. The overall story and editing are terribly problematic as well. The film jumps back and forth between plotlines in ways that are more frustrating and distracting than anything else. Furthermore, the interesting plotlines (those involving the Corps) end up going nowhere. Certain plot twists come up only in order to set up a sequel, and the main villain isn't even a real character.

Parallax isn't a character; he's just a giant puffy-headed death cloud. The only character that's actually developed as a villain is Hector Hammond, but he's more of an annoyance in the film than anything else. He's not interesting, he's not fun to watch, and he only distracts from Hal's story.

Mark Strong plays the character of Sinestro, a fellow Green Lantern from another sector who has more militaristic—and perhaps even immoral—ideas about the Corps and how it should operate. He's a hugely important character in the Green Lantern mythos, but gets nothing more than mere setup here. Furthermore, his relationship with Hal Jordan, a very important character and story point, is entirely glossed over here. Mark Strong plays the hell out of Sinestro with what little screentime he has, but it's not enough. This is a character that deserved much, much more.

Still, however, there are enjoyable things about the movie. Seeing Hal Jordan use his power ring in superheroic ways inspires a bit of childlike glee. The action, for what little is there, is fun. It's that tiny bit of enjoyability that saves Green Lantern from being terrible. And, to be fair, there's nothing in Green Lantern that's particularly offensive; it's just extremely bland.

The eight-year-old in me wants to give this movie a six out of ten. The twenty-one-year-old in me wants to give it a four. I'll split the difference. Let's just hope that if and when a sequel is made, it's better than this one.

5/10

Green Lantern: Emerald Knights

2011-06-07T00:00:00.004-05:00

Emerald Knights is a not-sequel to the previous DCUAM Green Lantern movie, First Flight. It uses the same animation models with a new voice cast and story continuity.

This is a jumbled bag of a movie. First of all, it's an anthology film, consisting of several different stories all placed within a framing story.
The framing story, with Hal Jordan mentoring young Arisia, a new Green Lantern recruit, is passable. It's not very interesting, and feels more annoying than anything else. A straight-up series of short stories presented separately might have been more interesting than this.

A few of the short stories are enjoyable. Laira's story is decently emotional and very well-choreographed. The opening story, focusing on Avra, the First Lantern, is adequate.
Most of the stories, however, are passable at best. Additionally, a few of these stories have been told before in the comics, with a mere few pages each. Those original comic versions, which only took a mere two minutes each to read, were more compelling than these animated tales are, despite their ten-to-fifteen-minute runtimes.

Most confusing of all is the fact that Emerald Knights looks exactly like First Flight, but is clearly not in the same continuity. Seeing the same characters but with drastically different voices doesn't help, either. Some fare better than others. Nathan Fillion has a great voice for Hal Jordan, and some of the side characters, Arisia and Laira, never had major speaking roles in the first film anyway. But others, like Sinestro, Kilowog, and Abin Sur just feel bizarre with their new voices. It's incredibly distracting, and not at all enjoyable.

If you're a huge Green Lantern fan, this could be worth your time. Otherwise, skip it.

4/10

TRON: Legacy

2010-12-17T00:00:00.004-06:00

TRON. Wow. TRON!

I remember being thirteen when I saw TRON for the first time. I loved it. It was an 80s cheesefest, sure, but it was captivating in the way that it blended the colorful whimsy of Disney fantasy, the technical detail of computing, the fun of arcade gaming, and the style of 80s filmmaking. In many ways, TRON taps into something highly personal within those of a certain generation.
TRON has been somewhat relegated to the hardcore geek crowd for the last decade or two, and no one ever really believed that a sequel would ever be made. Now, 28 years later, seemingly out of nowhere, comes TRON: Legacy.

Essentially, the gist of the original TRON was that Kevin Flynn (played by Jeff Bridges), computer programming genius, accidentally became "digitized" into a computer. There, he discovered a neon-colored world much like our own, where "programs" are individuals in the form of people. Kevin meets a security program named TRON, and helps him defeat the evil Master Control Program. In TRON: Legacy, Kevin Flynn has mysteriously disappeared, leaving his only son, Sam, to grow up alone. Now, after being without his father (or the answers behind his disappearance) for twenty years, Sam stumbles upon the world inside the computer and discovers that his father has been trapped inside the system by a malevolent program called CLU, who is created in Kevin's exact image. Sam, Kevin, and a female program named Quorra must fight CLU and escape from the digital world.

So that's about it. Lots of electroluminescent sci-fi action adventure.

Here's an interesting thing about Legacy: in contrast to the first movie, which was very bright, colorful, and fun, Legacy is rather dark and subdued. The tone is (for the most part) very serious. It works out alright, but I can't help feeling that the film would have been better-served by a faster pace and more "fun" vibe. As it is, it's okay, but it borders on being actually boring at times, which is something you never want to see in a movie about neon-colored people throwing laser-edged frisbees and riding digital motorcycles.

An unusual trait of the TRON films is that the visual effects, while not entirely flawless, feel somehow perfect. Because these events take place inside a computer world, it only makes sense that they should look computerized. After all, they are computer-generated.

The look of the TRON world in general is very different from the original film. While the original film had bright colors and characters that glowed as though made of light itself (and showed the programs to be actual beings of energy), Legacy alters this considerably. Legacy's world is dark—fitting, for this darker story—and its characters are shown to look like regular humans who merely wear clothing with a few glowing stripes. While I like the sleeker nature of the suits—especially the lack of the dorky helmets—the character designs in Legacy are almost boring by comparison to the first film. It's a fundamental change to the TRON universe, and I'm not sure I like it.

Old:

New:

The action scenes, while perhaps sparse, are generally well-done, and highly unique. They challenge the audience to wrap their heads around ideas of physics and energy that contradict real-world norms, much like The Matrix did in 1999.

The music of TRON: Legacy, composed primarily by Daft Punk, the world-renowned electronic music duo—is merely adequate at some times, but astonishing at others. Whether with electronic beats or orchestral swells, the soundtrack of Legacy is, overall, an amazing work of art. Some have said that the entire focus of Legacy is the sound, and I'm not inclined to disagree.

The characters of Legacy—Sam, Kevin, Quorra, and CLU—are all very well-acted. None of them really grip the audience the way that Kevin did in the first film, mostly due to the movie's subdued tone. One rather unique aspect of Legacy is the way that a younger version of Jeff Bridges is recreated through the use of extensive facial motion-capture and digital animation. The "young Jeff Bridges" looks astoundingly realistic in still photos, but in motion looks very obviously fake. At the same time, however, Jeff Bridges' acting manages to shine through in his motion-captured performance, giving the CG character a kind of emotional depth that counteracts the fakeness of the digital model.

One interesting note: the character of TRON from the first film does not factor into this film's story in any major way. In fact, the small ways that TRON is referenced in Legacy feel almost confusing to fans of the first film, since he's put in a position to have a much bigger role in the film than he does. It's almost definitely certain that he will return in a sequel (if such a sequel is made), but until then, this is just confusing.

All in all, TRON: Legacy is a rather mixed bag, yet is still quite remarkable. There's a sizable amount of depth in the film and its story, concluding with a curveball surprise at the end. While there's a part of me that loves TRON and wants to love TRON: Legacy, in the end I can only say that I like it.

7/10

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010-08-13T00:00:00.081-05:00

This is a movie about a boy (Scott) who likes a girl (Ramona). But, as it turns out, in order for Scott to date Ramona, he must defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends in awesome anime/video game/comic-book battle.

Now, before I go further, it's probably best that you watch the trailer for the movie. Watched it? Okay, sweet.

Scott Pilgrim is based on the comic book series of the same name. It's a brilliantly-written comedy/drama about a 23-year-old boy named Scott and the insane adventures that he and his friends go through.

The movie manages to capture a lot of what makes the book so special. It's got that same feeling of "non-reality" from the comics, which is impressive. The cast, for the most part, is spot-on with the book, to the point where you can merely glance at any of the actors and say "ah, they're that character."

There's a few oddities, though. First off, the plot is so condensed (squeezing six thick volumes of the comic into two hours of film) that the "high points" of the comic become the standard tone for the book. Whereas the book was maybe 70% "normal" and 30% "crazy", the movie is about 20% normal and 80% crazy. It's not a huge problem, but it does get to a point where the rapid-fire insanity is almost tiring.

Another problem with the film is that the sixth and final volume of the comic was not yet completed at the time of filming, and thus the film's ending is slightly different. Both versions end up the same in the end, but certain very important details are left out.

The two lead characters, Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers, are portrayed somewhat oddly. While Mary Elizabeth Winstead's portrayal of Ramona is spot-on, most of the truly important scenes for her character are left out, due to the altered final act of the film. Without this, Ramona is left as a somewhat bland and misunderstood character.

Michael Cera should never be allowed to play anyone in movies again. Ever.
Scott in the comics is a lazy, geeky, sometimes-energetic, slightly-dorky-yet-lovable guy. In the film, he's a dopey, selfish jerk. Cera's portrayal makes Scott look like he's just an arrogant, insecure jackass. The dialogue is exactly the same as in the book, but somehow Cera manages to make it seem terrible.

Now, aside from the (negative) comparisons to the original book, the movie is highly entertaining. The visual style alone makes the movie worth watching, but the dialogue and overall story make the whole thing border on the edge of brilliance. If the last act had retained the emotional closure and character depth that it should have (and Cera hadn't been cast), the film would be amazing. As it stands now, it's just "really fun, and pretty good."

7/10

The Last Airbender

2010-07-01T00:00:00.000-05:00

...Look, I... I just don't want to write this. It's not worth my time.

I love the animated series upon which this movie is based. But I loathe this movie. It takes all the magic, heart, drama, humor, excitement, energy, and fun out of the show, and replaces it with slow, stupid nonsense that does nothing but frustrate.

I could rant about how bad this movie is for a lot longer. I could mention how details, big and small, are changed from the series for apparently no reason, angering fans. I could talk about the bland acting, or the fact that there are literally NO scenes in the movie that serve as anything other than exposition. I could mention the stupidly-choreographed action scenes, which stand in contrast to the series' jaw-dropping fight scenes.

But no. I've already wasted more energy typing this review than this movie deserves.

0/10

Iron Man 2

2010-05-07T00:00:00.000-05:00

Iron Man 2 isn't bad, and it's not exactly great. It's just "decent."

When last we left our armored hero, he had gotten over his insane ego and become a more responsible person. In the span between the last film and this one, he's somehow become even more narcissistic than he ever was before.

That's essentially the crux of the entire movie: Tony Stark's ego. While there are genuine reasons for his self-destructive behavior, it still seems a bit much to swallow, and it makes Tony harder to enjoy as a character.

In the last movie, a combination of cleverly-written dialogue and well-acted improv banter between the actors kept up a certain charm. This time around, the dialogue's charm is wholly dependent upon the actor improv, and it constantly stumbles.

The plot is also rather weak. It lacks the simplicity and power of the first movie's plot, and feels like it's running in circles.

One particularly bizarre element is the introduction of two characters, Natasha Romanov (AKA Black Widow) and Nick Fury, who only show up in order to better set up their future appearances in The Avengers. Nick Fury makes a moderate amount of sense here, given that he was set up in the post-credits sequence of Iron Man, and SHIELD had played a supporting role in that film as well.

Romanov, however, is a strange twist. Scarlett Johannson plays Black Widow considerably different than her comics counterpart, lacking the distinctive Russian accent and personality. She feels more like "Scarlett Johannson in a black suit" rather than the actual Black Widow character.

Of course, for all the movie's faults, it's still decent fun. The special effects are great, the action (what little there is) is good, and the story is just decent enough to keep the audience's interest.

Iron Man 2 isn't a great film, but it's not bad either.

6/10

Kick-Ass

2010-04-16T00:00:00.129-05:00

What would happen if someone actually tried to be a superhero? What would happen if you just put on a costume and tried to fight crime in the real world?
Answer: you'd get your ass kicked.

This movie is one of the most violent and vulgar films I've ever seen. There's f-bombs casually thrown into virtually every other sentence, and the violence just gets more and more extreme as the film goes on. There's nothing vomit-inducing, but it's pretty intense. At the same time, however, the heavier the action gets in the film, the more stylized and "comic-book" it gets, which keeps it from simply getting disgusting. There's also some sexual humor in the first half of the movie, though it's not "extreme." All that to say that there will be many who are completely offended by the movie, and I don't fault them for that. Heck, I don't even recommend the movie to anyone who's not a male over the age of 18, and even then I'm selective about it. So yeah, there's my disclaimer. Read my review and watch the film at your own risk.

The film's story centers on Dave Lizewski (center above), an "average" and "unremarkable" teenager in every sense. He and his fellow comic book nerd-friends simply live their lives, going from one stupid and unremarkable day to the next.
One day, Dave asks the question: why hasn't anyone actually put on a costume and tried to be a superhero? His friends quickly give him the obvious answer: "because it's f***in' crazy, man. you'd get your ass kicked."
Later, after being the victim of a mugging, Dave decides that enough is enough. He puts on a bright green full-body wetsuit, grabs a tactical baton, and goes out to actually fight crime in his neighborhood, under the name "Kick-Ass." He gets beaten to the edge of death.

Somehow, this only strengthens his resolve, and he returns to his vigilante ways. He doesn't get his ass kicked quite as badly this time, and actually manages to become somewhat of a local hero in the process. His situation gets more and more complicated, however, when he discovers that he isn't the only costumed hero on the streets, and inadvertently gets involved in a bloody war between the father-daughter vigilante duo of "Big Daddy" and "Hit Girl" and their nemesis, crime boss Frank D'Amico.

Perhaps the most remarkable and amazing character in the film is Mindy Macready ("Hit Girl"), an eleven-year-old foul-mouthed super-assassin. She's simultaneously adorable and jaw-droppingly fierce. She steals every single scene, and is constantly entertaining. Seriously. Little girls like this are why I'm slightly wary of my ten-year-old cousin. (I'm pretty sure she could kill me if she wanted to. o_o )

Nicolas Cage also stars in this film, and, for once, does a great job. He's absolutely perfect as Big Daddy, who's essentially a cross between Adam West-Batman and The Punisher.
This film has made me actually like Nick Cage, which is just amazing. I mean, it's NICOLAS CAGE. The guy who SINGLE-HANDEDLY RUINS MOVIES. The BANE OF SUPERHERO FILMS. And yet, somehow, he totally rocks this role to the very core of awesomeness.

A weird switch occurs in the middle of the movie, where it goes from following the non-lethal adventures of Kick-Ass to also following the exploits of Big Daddy and Hit Girl, who unremorsefully slaughter their criminal opponents. Once the switch is made from "Batman" to "Punisher," however, it all works wonderfully.

Kick-Ass balances comedy with action and drama to such a fine degree that it's exquisitely entertaining for those few that aren't bothered by the heavy content. This is the first movie I've seen in a long time that I've enjoyed this much. Even though I have some severe reservations about some of its more extreme content, I still can't help but love the film.

It really does kick ass.

(come on, you thought I wasn't going to use that pun? It's just too easy to pass up...)

9/10

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

2009-08-07T00:00:00.001-05:00

This movie is a jumbled mess. Stephen Sommers has directed better films in the past, but Rise of Cobra is just a schizophrenic nightmare.

Sommers' past films--notably The Mummy--managed to keep a comfortably brisk pace while still making the audience care about the admittedly-silly characters. G.I. Joe, on the other hand, seems content to completely focus on the action. There are many flashbacks that explain the backgrounds of several characters, but most of those scenes are more annoying than interesting.

The action scenes are decent, though there's nothing to rave about. The special effects are pretty terrible, though that might simply be because of "style." The entire film comes across as a live-action cartoon in nearly every possible way. However, there's a rather large amount of swearing and a violence for this to be considered a childrens' film, which is rather odd. One wonders what exactly the target audience was for this movie.

In all honesty, there's not much more to say about the film. It's not terrible, but it's not great.

4/10.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009-07-15T00:00:00.121-05:00

Watching Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is like living through a melancholy dream. Even more than The Order of the Phoenix, this film is nearly devoid of bright color, reflecting the dreary mood of the story. This is actually rather strange, as Order of the Phoenix ended on a slightly upbeat and hopeful note. However, as a mostly melancholic, subdued film, The Half-Blood Prince is wonderful.

Right from the start, it's obvious that this is one of the most visually-impressive fantasy films ever created. The cinematography never ceases to amaze, and the extreme level of detail and realism that accompanies the already-striking artistic style rivals that of the Lord of the Rings films. It's especially satisfying to watch the perfectly-rendered Quidditch match in this film and realize just how far the visual effects have come since The Sorcerer's Stone. Each magical spell, gust of snow-filled wind, and billow of black smoke looks perfectly realistic.

Despite the dark tone of the overall plot, this actually may be the most genuinely humorous Potter film. For a good 80% of the movie, the main characters have little more to do than simply live their lives. It might sound boring or pointless, but there's so much character development and genuine humor that it's completely entertaining the whole way through.

One surprising—but not unwelcome—aspect of the story is the heavy emphasis on the close, loving relationship between Harry and Hermione. It's touching in an unexpected way, and goes to show just how strong their friendship really is.

Even Draco Malfoy is given more depth, as we see for the first time that he is a conflicted character, rather than a one-dimensional bigoted bully.

The Half-Blood Prince is not entirely without disappointments, however. While the dark seriousness of the story is not necessarily a bad thing, it does take away some of the "punch" that The Order of the Phoenix excelled at.

Another problem with the film is the fact that it lacks a real ending. While The Order of the Phoenix managed to create a conclusion where one really didn't exist, here we don't even have any sort of closure at all. Although we are told exactly where the characters are going and what's happened at the end, we still don't have the emotional closure that is necessary for the film to work on a purely emotional level. This very well may have been the intent of the filmmakers, as Dumbledore's death is meant to be an emotional blow, but the simple fact is that the ending is not satisfying. It feels as though we are given an invisible "to be continued" message when we shouldn't have needed one.

However, for all of its narrative flaws, the film is far from crippled because of them. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has a wonderful script, well-executed humor, stunning visuals, and great characterization.

Eight points for Gryffindor.

8/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-24T00:05:00.009-05:00

This is not a good film.
It is, however, a decent-ish movie.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen lacks solid character development, good scriptwriting, and a coherent plot. And yet, for all it's flaws, there are still select moments where it's highly entertaining.

Revenge starts off with a brief prologue, followed by a great action scene that sets up the plot very well. In this story, Optimus Prime and his team of Autobots are working alongside NEST, a small U.S. military force led by Major Lennox, to eradicate the Decepticons from the face of the planet. When an ancient evil enemy, The Fallen, moves to destroy the Earth, Optimus Prime and the Autobots find themselves nearly powerless against this new Decepticon threat.

Unlike the first film, in which the the film's budget greatly restricted the amount of screentime that the transformers could be given, here we see the robots in their full glory throughout the film, even when we probably don't need to. The extreme close-up camera problems from the first film are almost entirely gone, as the action is much better-framed in Revenge of the Fallen.

The film feels very much like the original animated series, as we get the same globe-spanning (and oft-ridiculous) sci-fi war adventures of the Transformers. It's a lot of fun, even if it comes off as convoluted and silly.

A highlight of this film is the much-improved character of Sam Witwicky. In the last film, he was an annoying boy whose entire motivation was to get a cool car and a hot girlfriend. His entire existence in the last film seemed contrived and silly, as was the film's assertion that he somehow represented the best of humankind. In this film, he is shown to be much more responsible, working right from the start towards getting his college education, and, later, saving the world. He is also given a completely plausible reason to exist in the film, which makes his scenes actually contribute to the overall plot rather than distract from it as in the first film. For the first time, I actually care about Sam. He earns his place in the film.

Mikaela (Megan Fox) has nothing to do in the movie. All of her important scenes only serve to advance the plot in a very small way, and it's obvious that the scriptwriters were just looking for something to do with her. Nearly all of the other secondary characters are similarly useless or annoying, with the notable exception of Major Lennox, who continues his role as the .

Throughout the film we see Optimus Prime not as the slow, clunky old robot that he was in the last film, but as a powerful and skilled warrior. After seeing Optimus do little in the first film but give inspirational speeches and get kicked around by Megatron, it's great to see him as the great warrior that he should be. One of his fight scenes is, without a doubt, the best action scene I've seen in a long time. As a Transformers fan, that scene alone was worth the $9.50 I paid for the ticket.

Bumblebee is the only other Autobot that's given much spotlight, which is probably for the best. Honestly, there's no reason for the audience to care about anyone else, so this is a welcome change. He's every bit as cool as he was in the first film, though his speech problems are becoming annoying. In the last movie, we never really got to see him in action, as he was either off-screen or crippled for all of his fight scenes, but here we can see that he's an extremely good fighter; fast and powerful. His Camaro form also gets an upgrade from the 2007 film, which is nice for the people like me who appreciate that.

Old

New

The two new "comic relief" characters, Skids and Mudflap, are extremely annoying. They're portrayed with a large number of racial stereotypes (which makes absolutely no sense), and serve to do nothing other than sit there and act like morons. They could have been completely taken out of the story and the film would have been better for it. It's not exaggerating to say that they're the worst part of the movie.

Jetfire, perhaps the most important of the new Autobots, is portrayed in an odd fashion. Whereas he was a powerful (and relatively young) Autobot in all of his previous appearances in Transformers lore, here he is shown to be an ancient transformer that can barely move. As a fan, I'm somewhat disappointed with this portrayal, as Jetfire is one of my favorite TF characters. Here he serves the purposes of exposition and little more. His entire introduction scene is actually one of the major subplots that did not need to be in the film.

The rest of the Autobot cast is relatively ignored. Ironhide and Ratchet are given only a few lines in this film, and serve as background characters along with Arcee, Jolt, and Sideswipe. While this might seem sad, it ultimately works, as they really are mere soldiers in a war, and aren't extremely important characters anyway.

The villains this time are actually shown in their full glory outside of battle, rather than only glimpsed as in the 2007 film. It's nice, even if they're a bit silly and not very deep. They really only serve as the threat, not actual characters. However, as that threat, they serve their purpose well.

The aforementioned forest battle comes in the middle of the story, and honestly is the high point of the entire film. The story's climax isn't anywhere near as interesting, but the endless number of explosions and mini-battles keep the intensity high. Perhaps too high, actually.

It's been said by some that a film is filled with depth, while a movie is superficial entertainment. By those definitions, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a terrible film, but a so-so movie. Normally the battles and "fun" elements of the story would be enough to elevate the movie overall, but the bad stuff here is just so bad that it's hard to enjoy the whole.

4/10

Star Trek

2009-05-08T21:19:00.004-05:00

This is not the Star Trek you know. At all.

Star Trek is an insanely fast and fun re-imagining of the Star Trek franchise, and it generally works. Those who pine for a methodical, thought-provoking film may be disappointed, as this film makes momentum its primary concern. If the 1978 Star Trek: The Motion Picture was focused on slow plot development with minimal action, then this new Star Trek is its polar opposite. While there is plenty of character definition and development, this film does it in a very quickly-cut style, giving us hundreds of great character "snippets" rather than a few dozen longer sequences. Sadly, the film is perhaps too focused on the momentum, often interweaving too many subplots into the narrative in order to keep the pace going strong. It's a trade-off, and while I'm not sure it was for the best, it certainly keeps the film interesting, which is, at the very least, fun.

"Fun" may be the key word in this new film, which seemingly ditches the science fiction "thinker" feel of the old Star Trek for a much more exciting narrative. Humor similar to that seen in Star Trek IV (the one with the whales) abounds in this film, which may annoy some and thrill others.

The new Trek crew is much more evenly-balanced than the old. While the Original Series shoved characters like Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, and Scotty to the background, this film gives each crewmember their own spotlight, usually seamlessly.

Chris Pine's portrayal of James T. Kirk is remarkable in that the viewer is not constantly reminded of William Shatner, as there aren't too many comparisons to be drawn. While Shatner's Kirk was a slightly foolish risk-taker, Pine's Kirk is a younger, brasher, and much more thrill-seeking character. He doesn't show the maturity of Shatner's Kirk in this film, but the ending certainly seems to suggest that we will see that in the sequels.

Zachary Quinto's Spock is one of the most significantly different portrayals, as he does not have the complete emotional control that Leonard Nimoy's version of the character possessed. This Spock is shown to be a somewhat conflicted character, constantly confused by his half-Human-half-Vulcan heritage. It's enjoyable to watch, though I do wonder how future storylines will deal with the fact that Spock is now a much more emotional character. Will he still retain his reliance on logic? It seems essential to the character, so I hope so. In any case, Quinto plays the character extremely well, to the point where one actually forgets Nimoy's famously powerful voice, even despite Nimoy's appearance as Spock in the film.

Leonard "Bones" McCoy may be my favorite re-imagining of any of the characters. Karl Urban, known for his Rohirrim-mustering in The Lord of the Rings, plays the slightly manic and constantly paranoid McCoy in such a sensical-yet-constantly-humorous way that the viewer cannot help but be entranced at his every appearance. He can switch from being hilarious to completely serious and dramatic at a split-second's notice, and with absolutely no sign of inconsistency. This McCoy is simultaneously accurate to the original character and completely different, all while being wholly entertaining.

The characters of Scotty and Chekov are played mostly for laughs, and while 80% of the time it works, every fifth gag comes off as childish and stupid. Hopefully that'll change by the time the second film rolls around,

The villain of the film, Nero, is a little bit underdeveloped. Star Trek: Countdown, a comic book prequel to the film, developed Nero's character in an amazing way. However, his portrayal in this film is hampered by the fact that certain very important scenes for Nero were cut out of the theatrical release, leaving us to wonder exactly how and why this seemingly silly character is in command of the massive Romulan mining ship-turned-warship, the Narada. I would have loved to have seen more of the tragic and powerful backstory of Nero in the film, as it really developed him into a character that was sympathetic, truly vengeful, and enthralling.

One significant point must be addressed: two of the main characters become romantically involved. Every time I hear myself or anyone else bring up that relationship, I have to stop and take a moment to gather my scrambled thoughts up off the ground. While the film certainly explains why their coupling should occur, it is still very off-putting. However, the humorously shocked reactions of the other characters to this relationship both acknowledge and alleviate viewers' concerns.

Some of the plot choices in Star Trek are confusing. Why exactly did the writers feel the need for a Willy Wonka-style "Scotty's stuck in a water pipe" scene? It added NOTHING. Also, the reveal of the film's backstory was badly done, leaving many--including myself--scratching their heads as to why the choice was made to reveal the central driving force of the external conflict in such a schitzophrenic and vague manner.

Another seeming plot hole is the fact that Kirk and most of the main characters are mere cadets, yet are almost instantly promoted to being the senior staff of the Federation's flagship by the end of the film. From what I've heard, there was a bit of dialogue that was cut from the film which explained that, due to the time-altering events of the film's prologue, the timeline is attempting to "mend itself" by pushing the same people from the Original Series into their same roles, despite the altered state of the universe. That line would have gone a long way to explain things, and I'm not exactly pleased that it was cut.

There are several events in this film that are so mind-shatteringly epic that they forever alter the Star Trek universe. This new series of films is not the same Trek we've known for 40 years; this is something entirely different, slightly akin to Joss Whedon's Serenity. Some may not initially welcome the change; it took me about twelve hours to accept it. Now that I've had a good morning's sleep, I've realized that I love this new movie. It's character-based, fast, and fun.

9/10

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-03T18:02:00.003-05:00

Seven years ago, when I first saw the original X-Men film, I was hooked forever. I've now read dozens of X-men comics, seen countless episodes of X-men cartoons, bought action figures, watched all the films, and spent countless hours poring over X-men lore.
And even after all of that, I am honestly not sure what to think of this movie.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not an X-men film, nor is it entirely a Wolverine film. It's actually a strange amalgamation of various elements that all come together into an oddly-constructed narrative.

The plot basically follows Wolverine as he goes through the various events that will lead him through his membership in the superpowered black ops unit, Team X, and end with him losing the memories of his past.

An odd amount of time in the film is actually spent on a dozen or so other mutant characters that honestly feel like "extras" in a film that should be centered solely on the title character. At times, the film feels like a video game with the way that it constantly switches from character-fight-scene to character-fight-scene.

Some characters ultimately work (though the story might have been better-told without them), while others only hold the story back. Most of them fit into the latter category.

Wolverine's biggest flaw is that it doesn't allow you to feel for the character(s). While Hugh Jackman gives it his all, the script, direction, and editing don't allow for the film to work on the personal level that it should. Also, there are many changes in Wolverine's story that seem rather odd, such as the choice to make Sabretooth, a villain seen in the first X-men film, Wolverine's half-brother. Since Wolverine has his memory wiped in this movie [not really a spoiler], it would make sense for him to not remember Sabretooth, but how exactly did Sabretooth go from a cold and calculating murderer to a blonde guy who just stares funny at people and has no memory of anything having to do with Wolverine?
BAD CONTINUITY MANAGEMENT.

Another disappointment is the fact that Logan's much-hinted-at past is shown to be a lot more boring than we thought it was. X2 had flashbacks showing a horrifying surgery scene which involved Logan escaping from a government facility, traumatized and amnesia-stricken. As it turns out, that surgery scene actually only lasted TWO MINUTES (that's in-story time, not even screen time), and he doesn't lose his memories until several days later. While the comics (and X2) showed Wolverine's past to be bloody, brutal, and horrifying, this film shows the tale to be extremely flat and devoid of deep emotion. It's no wonder that the film version of Logan is so much softer than his comics counterpart; his past is practically happy-go-lucky by comparison.

The visual effects are... hit-and-miss. There's nothing that really blows the mind of the viewer, nor is there really anything with much artistic quality. Many of the special effects are actually pretty bad.

All in all, this isn't a terrible film, but it's not amazing either. Go see it if you're a huge comics fan (if only because this will be the subject of many a geek-discussion in the months and years to come), but otherwise wait until the DVD, then NetFlix it.

EDIT:
As I have recently learned, if you are a female, this film apparently is much, MUCH more enjoyable, and you should add another five points to the below score. (thanks, Hugh Jackman). :P

4/10

Hulk Vs

2009-03-26T17:38:00.023-05:00

This direct-to-DVD feature is actually two films--Hulk vs Thor and Hulk vs Wolverine--on one disc. However, unlike its deceptively simplistic title, these two animated shorts are not simple fighting matches; they are complete stories which both feature the Hulk as the main antagonist.

Hulk Vs Thor:
This short film is slightly longer than its Wolverine-centered counterpart. Additionally, the story is far more straightforward and epic. This tale is a mythological epic that literally takes the heroes and villains to Hell and back, all with a grand style befitting of its source material.

Everything in this animated Asgard glows with a supernatural light and is sculpted with an angelic grace. This truly feels like a supernatural realm, and is not easily confused with our world.

Thor himself is well-designed, not looking too chunky or overly feminine. He looks, sounds, and moves exactly as he should.

The story is simple, yet takes several turns. At the start, Hulk vs Thor deals with Thor's evil half-brother, Loki, attempting to use the Hulk as a weapon against Asgard. Of course, the Hulk is a monster that cannot be controlled, and apocalyptic chaos ensues.

Bruce Banner's character is given a surprising amount of depth in this story, with the importance of the Hulk/Banner duality in the spotlight. A twist in the plot allows for a deep look at what makes Bruce Banner a hero, something that is rarely--if ever--seen in his other stories.

This tale deals with themes of life, death, love, and self-sacrifice. The epic scale of Thor vs Hulk is remarkable, especially considering its short 45-minute length.

The animation is practically flawless, mixing artistic flair with fluid-yet-brutal motion. I do wonder, however, at the apparent lack of on-screen blood. It seems strange that certain scenes in Hulk vs Thor that show on-screen sword wounds are oddly devoid of the animated blood that permeated Hulk vs Wolverine. After all, it's not as if the film was going to get a rating below PG-13 anyway. Perhaps this film was not originally meant to be coupled with the grittier Wolverine story? Perhaps Marvel Studios wants to be able to air this film on television? In any case, the fact that the story takes place in a magical land covers up for any perceived lack of realism.

All in all, the film is great at what it is: a 45-minute superhero action/drama. Though it may not stand up as high as many of DC comics' animated movies, it's definitely a great feature that fans of action, comic books, mythology, or animation in general can enjoy.

8/10.

_____

Hulk vs Wolverine

Hulk vs Wolverine trades drama for carnage-filled fun. I was very, very surprised at the level of violence in this film. On-screen characters are dismembered and disemboweled. However, this is not a simple carnage-fest; there is in fact a story here.

This story takes place before Wolverine joins with the X-men, but after he has escaped from the Weapon X science lab. The actual narrative is simple: the government wants Wolverine to track down and possibly kill the Hulk, who has apparently gone on a rampage. However, Wolverine's old Weapon X teammates have special plans, both for Bruce Banner and Logan himself.

One thing that's immediately obvious is that the character designs are a bit different in this film than in Hulk vs Thor. While the designs in Thor were elegant-yet-strong, the characters here have a "clunkier" feeling. It's not necessarily a bad thing, as it reinforces the gritty tone of the story, but I would have appreciated Wolverine looking a little less goofy.

On that note, however, Wolverine is characterized pretty perfectly, just as Thor was. Voiced by the excellent actor who also voices Logan in Wolverine and the X-Men, Wolverine's voice has the perfect amount of grit.

The Hulk/Wolverine fight is one of the best and most brutal fights I have ever seen in animation. It's bloody, tense, and genuinely surprising.

The real story kicks into gear, however, when the Weapon X team shows up.

From left to right: Deadpool, Omega Red, Lady Deathstrike, Sabretooth

The villains of Weapon X are a lot of fun to watch, but while Omega Red, Deathstryke, and Sabretooth are mostly just out for Wolverine's blood, Deadpool is genuinely funny. His morbid humor is both slightly disgusting and completely hilarious. It's the first time he's ever been seen in animation, and it's nice. It'll be great to see him return in Marvel's future stories.

If there is any real flaw with Hulk vs Wolverine, it's that the story is practically non-existent. It's lots of fun, but after seeing Thor's deep and meaningful development on several different characters, Wolverine is just a bloody thrillride. However, as a bloody thrillride, it's awesome.

7/10.

________

All in all, this is a really great DVD movie. It's thoroughly enjoyable, and has some of the best action animation on this side of the Pacific Ocean. The DVD has some great commentaries that highlight the little details, making the experience for comics fans that much better.

Overall grade:
7.5/10

Watchmen

2009-03-06T19:00:00.002-06:00

The twelve-issue comic maxi-series Watchmen was published in 1986, and has now become recognized as one of the top 100 novels of the 20th century. Its deep study of the psychological reasoning behind superheroic characters has influenced every facet of the comic-book industry. The story is gritty, realistic, and shockingly dark at times. It is not a tale for children, as its content is entirely too mature.
Many had previously (and infamously) called Watchmen "unfilmable," citing its overly complicated narrative and nonlinear storytelling. Zach Snyder, director of this 2009 film, has now proven them wrong.

For those who don't know, Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985, where costumed vigilantes exist in the real world. With one major exception, none of the so-called "heroes" have superpowers, and many of them are slightly insane. The presence of these vigilantes has completely changed the world, with the U.S. winning the Vietnam War and the subsequent events of the Cold War becoming even more heated. In the present time of Watchmen, the "doomsday clock" stands at five minutes to "midnight," when nuclear devastation will be upon the world. The main plot of Watchmen revolves around a core group of "heroes," complete with lengthy individual flashbacks. When one of these heroes is murdered, a chain of events is set in motion that threatens millions of lives.

Fans of the novel may be dissatisfied with certain alterations to the original story. However, the changes all work in the end. Several alterations are actually superior to the original tale.

Zach Snyder will forever go down in history as the one man with the ability to adapt comics into motion picture form while still maintaining their original integrity. Watchmen practically uses the original novel's panels as storyboards, yet still somehow makes them work in motion. This may be the single most visually well-done film I have ever seen.

Parents must take note: This is not a film for children. Heck, it may not be a film for you. There are at least two notable sex scenes in the film, though only one of them was very graphic. There was also quite a bit of nudity in the film, but only once was it ever used in an unnecessary way. Curses are thrown about like lawn darts, though never without reason. The violence is brutal and bloody. When a younger friend of mine asked me if I thought her parents might allow her to see the film, I replied, "Nope. Your daddy would drag you out of the theater. Too many broken bones and naked people."

Watchmen was always a tale of moral ambiguity, and this film is very accurate to its source material. This is not a simple film in which the characters are identified as "good" or "evil." This is a story about realistic human characters with real human flaws. Those looking for a superhero film will be disappointed: Watchmen is no such thing.

This film is an elaborate series of stunningly beautiful musical montages. Watching Watchmen is like eating New York cheesecake drizzled with strawberry glaze. I found myself wanting to cheer at the action scenes, which are overly stylish, yet kinetic and real enough to seem plausible. Set to electric guitar rock combined with traditional superheroic orchestral fare, the action in this film makes the men in the audience feel like eight-year-old boys again (provided that the on-screen bone breaks and cracked spines don't make them vomit)

Sadly, Watchmen does have its narrative flaws. Even the original novel felt lacking, as though the reader was only privy to short glimpses into the lives of these complex characters. This film has the same problem, but does make up for it somewhat with its highly enjoyable visuals.

All in all, Watchmen is not a perfect film, but is still very good, acting as the new standard for comic book adaptations.

8/10

The Archives

2009-02-18T17:43:00.003-06:00

I've re-archived my reviews based on the films' original release dates. This means that the so-called "Retro Reviews" have now been renamed and made to look as if they were written at the time of their original release (which, ironically, was before this blog was created).

I've also put many of the posts into categories, which you can select through the "Genres" section, just below the dated archive list.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

2009-01-23T19:00:00.002-06:00

This film is essentially an extensive prologue to Underworld, and serves in that sense quite admirably. As its own story, however, it falters.

The basic plot is this:
In medieval times, a vampire coven under the rule of Viktor--whom we know from the first Underworld to be a tyrant--has bred a new race of werewolves: the Lycans. These werewolves, unlike their more animalistic brethren, are completely sentient and capable of controlling their transformations. The original Lycan, Lucian--who is both a son and a pet to Viktor--is secretly married to Viktor's daughter, Sonja. The Lycans are slaves to the vampires, and eventually this reaches its breaking point. Lucian is forced to rebel against his vampire masters in order to save Sonja's life, and is punished severely. It is at this point that Lucian leads a Lycan mass escape from the vampire stronghold, and forms an army of werewolves to return and destroy the vampire menace.

One of the problems with Rise of the Lycans is that we already know the outcome of the story from what's been told in the previous Underworld films. However, this film does provide for a very strong support of Lucian as a heroic character, something that was severely lacking in the original film. There is no doubt that Lucian and the other Lycans are completely in the right in their rebellion, which casts some doubt on the supposed moral ambiguity of the Vampire/Lycan gang war seen in Underworld.

Another odd thing is the irrationality of Viktor. There are plenty of logical--albeit flawed--reasons to be a stubborn, amoral person, but Viktor appears to be a tyrant for no other reason than... wait, was there a reason?

The violence and sexual content in this film was comparable to Underworld: Evolution, though perhaps less immoral. There was an almost-graphic sex scene in this film, but the characters were married, at least. Furthermore, the gore was seen almost entirely on the battlefield, and was not without purpose.

The visual effects were well-done (the werewolves in particular look stellar), though some of the CG coloring done on Sonja's eyes looked messy. A major gripe with this film is its complete darkness. It is very, very difficult to see what is happening in certain battle scenes. I saw the film in a satisfactorily dark theater, from just the right distance. There was no reason for me to not be able to discern what was happening other than the fact that the film is irrationally dark and confusing.

This film seems to owe a lot to Kate Beckinsale. After all, it was she who essentially made the previous Underworld films profitable--and worth watching. The character of Sonja almost seems too similar to Selene, and I wonder if perhaps the filmmakers would have cast Beckinsale in the role if she had been available. I do realize that Sonja and Selene are supposed to be similar due to a subplot of the series, but it does seem perhaps too strange. Beckinsale actually opens Rise of the Lycans with an exposition monologue--which is perhaps fitting, considering that it was Selene who had discovered this long-forgotten history in the previous films. The film also ends with footage from the original Underworld's opening, with an overlay of dialogue that is semi-relevant to this film's story. It's a somewhat cool moment, but it feels as though it simply panders to fans' nostalgia over the original film, rather than delivering a truly new and original experience. Another problem with the ending is that the overlaid dialogue directly references Selene's past, which is suddenly confusing after considering certain events in Rise of the Lycans. Unless you're well-steeped in Underworld lore and understand the complex chronological rituals of the Vampire elders, you may not understand this seeming plot hole. But hey, we get to see Kate Beckinsale, even if it was archival footage that we already saw six years ago.

I definitely do like many elements of this film, but not enough to recommend it to anyone but fans of the series. If anything, this film serves best as a prologue to the first film, and in that sense, it is enjoyable.

5/10

Prince Caspian - Eight Months Later

2009-01-09T12:00:00.015-06:00

Last week, I watched Prince Caspian for the first time since its midnight showing. Perhaps because I knew what to expect, I enjoyed the film far more than I did the first time.

I noticed a lot of interesting things that I think I missed on my first viewing. My initial reaction to Caspian had been "what the heck did I just watch?" But after I'd had time to let it all sink in and settle, things became clear.
One thing that only marginally made sense the first time was Aslan's late appearance. While it was rather obvious that the Pevensies and Caspian were supposed to wait for Aslan rather than move on their own, the little details in the dialogue seemed to support this point more than I had originally realized. This blends very well into Prince Caspian's overall theme of "growing up, but not forgetting what you've learned from your childhood." Peter and (to a lesser extent) Susan had forgotten the lessons they learned from Aslan, and were relying on their own strength rather than their savior's. Matthew 18:3-4 says "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." In this instance, Lucy is the humble child that still believes in Aslan, while Peter needs to let go of his pride and remember what he learned in his younger years.
It's true that Peter was not nearly as arrogant and prideful in the original book, but his altered character in the film is both redeemable and important to the underlying conflict. Without Peter's admittedly foolish actions in the film adaptation, the moral message wouldn't have been nearly as pronounced.

The film's message certainly has flaws, however. While the concept of "God waiting for us to trust him" works in an allegorical sense, it does not work in a literal setting. Why did Aslan allow the Narnians to be attacked and hunted to near-extinction, then let half of those survivors die in a foolish attack on a castle? Was it really all simply to teach the elder Pevensies a lesson? In the Bible it is often stated that the Israelites were conquered or punished in some fashion because they fell into sin, but there's nothing stating that the Narnians did anything to deserve being slaughtered. Of course, perhaps the dead Narnians all went to Heaven after their deaths (some sort of uber-Narnia?). Aslan's absence seems to be more fitting in an allegorical fantasy book, but live-action film constantly makes the viewer see the realistic side of things, and unfortunately highlights some very odd inconsistencies.

The Chronicles of Narnia is a book series that essentially captures the feeling of a young child's imaginary fantasy, while mixing in mature Christian allegory. Unfortunately, some of this doesn't quite mix when put into film form. C.S. Lewis wisely kept the battle scene in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe unseen, thus keeping a common tone throughout the story. The film adaptation of LWW shows the battle (and rightly so), but unfortunately sacrifices the steadiness of tone by suddenly shifting the main characters (who are children) out of their gentle fantasy journey and into a vicious war. That's not to say that it's not still enjoyable, but the abrupt shift does make for a technically weaker narrative. Make no mistake, I would gladly sacrifice narrative cohesiveness in order to have a great Narnian battle, but there's still a part of me that screams "this doesn't naturally follow!"
Prince Caspian has a similar problem in that it is far too dark and violent to be considered a real "family" film, yet is too tame to be anything else. The film maintains a steadily flowing narrative in that it focuses entirely on war, which is ultimately a good thing. The children (with the exception of Lucy) are all grown up and completely prepared to fight, perhaps to a fault. As stated before, this film is about growing up. However, in order to grow up in a wise manner, Peter and Susan had to essentially become children of Aslan again, yet use the greater maturity they've gained with age to fight a deadly war. This symbolizes the way that Christians must remember the lessons they learned as children, applying them to the constant struggle of adult life. Indeed, this is perhaps literally stated in the end of Caspian, as Peter and Susan are said to have "learned all they can" from Narnia, and now must return to the natural world, applying the wisdom gained from their Narnian adventures in the real world.

Speaking of the end of the film...
Much has been said about the Susan/Caspian "romance." This is perhaps the most annoying complaint I've heard, as it honestly doesn't matter. The film's plot isn't at all changed by this flirtatiousness, and in some ways it actually makes sense. We know from The Last Battle that Susan eventually becomes materialistic and shallow, so it isn't a stretch to say that she'd flirt with a handsome prince in a fantasy land. Her kiss to him may have been more of a goodbye to Narnia itself, as Caspian--being the King of Narnia--was essentially Narnia incarnate in handsome-man-form. (okay, even I can't help laughing at that designation) They didn't "fall in love;" they merely flirted and kissed once before never seeing each other again. Heck; Susan was the only foreign girl Caspian had ever seen (and probably the hottest girl in the entire realm), and Caspian was the only guy around that wasn't Susan's brother. In such a stressful time, why wouldn't they be attracted to one another? Sheesh, purists. Get over it.

The childlike/mature dichotomy is a complicated one, and is perhaps Caspian's biggest fault. As stated earlier, the film is too mature for young children, yet perhaps too bland for older audiences. However, it still manages to capture the feeling of a young boy's imaginary adventure, and, in that sense, it works very well.
Looking back on Prince Caspian, I feel that I can safely give it a good rating.

6/10.

Punisher: War Zone

2008-12-15T17:21:00.015-06:00

This movie is probably the most unrelentingly violent 103 minutes of imagery that I have ever seen.
It
Is
AWESOME.

For those who don't know the story or the character, let me break it down for you: Frank Castle is a man whose wife and child are brutally murdered by the mob. Having Special Forces experience, Castle becomes a vigilante, "The Punisher," hunting down and brutally killing not only those responsible for his family's murder, but mob bosses and criminals as a whole. The police have a love/hate relationship with The Punisher, as he technically commits murder, yet also takes down high-class mob bosses that the police can't get in jail.

This film is in no way connected to the 2004 film The Punisher, starring Thomas Jane. While that film was an attempt at a more melancholic, sorrow-driven story, it ultimately drowned in its own boredom and lack of depth or fun. Punisher: War Zone is a reboot of the film franchise, and forgoes the ill-fitting poetry of the first film in lieu of straightforward, brutal action.

Punisher: War Zone has a relatively simple plot. It begins when The Punisher, on one of his crime-boss-killing-sprees, murders Nicky Donatelli—not initially realizing that Donatelli is actually working undercover for the FBI. Donatelli is posthumously revealed to have been an FBI agent, thus leaving his wife and daughter alone and defenseless against the vengeful mob. At the same time, Castle severely disfigures and humiliates a mob leader, thus creating a new psychopath who is hell-bent on revenge against both the Punisher and the Donatelli family. From a filmmaking perspective, this is essentially just a reason for the Punisher to deal out bullet-laden justice to the skulls of the corrupt.

In this film, I saw heads being punched, shot, stabbed, cut up, sliced off, broken off, blown up, blown apart (yes, there is a difference), blown off, and punched in. It's basically the ultimate guy movie. I can't recommend it to any females, however. It's essentially a crazy, action-laden crime war film. The plot isn't anything special, but this is one rare film where the sheer insanity of what's happening on-screen outdoes what's written in the script. If you're a male above the age of 17, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

8/10

Classic Disney

2008-10-09T23:15:00.017-05:00

I've decided to write a relative deluge of reviews on classic Disney animated films. However, before I dive into those, I thought that I should explain my background with these movies.

On July 26th, 1989, I was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
On November 17th, 1989, The Little Mermaid was released in theaters, being the first in a what would later be referred to as "the Disney Renaissance," a period of several years where high-quality animated Disney films were both critical and commercial successes.
Many of my earliest memories completely revolve around the Disney films that I watched as a two-year-old at my grandparents' home. My favorite by far was The Little Mermaid, probably because of the fact that I lived on a tropical island at the time.
By the time I was six, I had seen many more of the now-classics that had been released in the following years, notably Beauty and the Beast, Pocahontas (though I hesitate to call that one a "classic"), and many older films such as 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book.
My entire world at that age revolved around creating my own imaginary universe, where all the heroes, villains, and adventures of those incredible stories were all intertwined. There's no word that could express my obsession with those stories, even though I couldn't see their true value at the time.

By the time I was ten, I'd seen them all. However, I had now progressed to the point in life where I was allowed to watch more "mature" films, and moved on from the animated tales of my past, seeking the more cynical stories of the modern era. The old Disney magic lay forgotten.

This semester in college, I signed up for a World Literature class that has a focus on "Fairy Tales and Folkore." As it turns out, some of our assignments focus completely on reinterpretations of classic stories, including the Disney films. I have now begun to revisit my childhood, and view these tales through new and (I hope) more mature eyes.

The Renaissance has now passed, and Disney films have fallen into shadow.
Memory is now all that remains of their former glory, and, through these writings, I plan to honor that memory.

Just as soon as my Netflix DVDs arrive.

Finished Reviews:
The Little Mermaid
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin

Classic Reviews

2008-10-09T23:07:00.002-05:00

Many of my upcoming reviews are on films that have become "classics;" those films that deserve a better designation than the purely stylistic title "Retro."
These reviews will be titled "Classic Reviews," and will likely have more in-depth analysis of not only the films themselves, but their place in film history, and what makes them so remarkable.

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

2008-08-17T02:02:00.002-05:00

Star Wars: The Clone Wars is not a "movie." Originally, it was intended to be the first several episodes of the upcoming TV series of the same name. However, due to various reasons, these episodes were edited together into a "movie," and released in theaters.
God help us all.

One thing that is immediately obvious is the fact that The Clone Wars is very kid-oriented. Instead of the dramatic Star Wars logo and the opening crawl sequence, the film begins with the Clone Wars logo, and has no crawl. Instead, what would have been the text of the crawl is actually the spoken dialogue of a narrator. It sounds somewhat like the narrator of the old WWII propaganda movies, and works on some level. However, I honestly hate the fact that Lucasfilm feels the need to talk down to me. I could have read the opening crawls just fine when I was four years old, and I don't need it to be read to me now. Just let me read it for myself and let my imagination do the work.

This "movie" does not have spectacular animation by film standards. In fact, visually, it's rather sub-par compared to virtually any other CG animated movie in theaters. However, for a TV series, it will be easily one of the most visually stunning shows on TV, if not the most. To quote IGN.com, the characters are rendered with a style reminiscent of "hand-painted maquettes". It's a very interesting style, though in motion much of it seems strange. George Lucas apparently told the animators to make the motions of the characters stiffer and more exaggerated, rather than smooth and lifelike. This is an interesting move, though it doesn't always pay off. Many of the character movements just look awkward or illogical, rather than stylistically interesting. The battle scenes are spectacular to be sure, but they lack a certain style. They don't have the sharp style and pacing of the previous animated Clone Wars series, and aren't realistic enough to be anywhere near as good as what was seen in the live-action films. What's left is something in-between that isn't as good as either, and falls short of nearly every mark.

The two main flaws of the film are the dialogue and the pacing. Throughout the film, there is no pause. The entire movie is one quick sequence after another, filled with poorly-written and acted dialogue. This may not be the fault of the voice actors, however, as the animation for the film was done at least a year ago, and the voice actors may have had to lip-sync to the animation, causing the lines to sound odd or ill-timed. Additionally, the "squeezing" of the already-made episodes into a film under two hours may have left the editors with nothing left to do but make every shot in the film as short as possible. I honestly cannot describe how fast the film moves. It's like watching a schizophrenic on caffeine (my apologies to any schizophrenics whom I just mentally compared to this film. You're much better than that).
There is no room for drama or a quiet moment. The film just keeps on running, never taking a break. This makes the action scenes seem no more exciting than the [very few] non-action scenes, and the dialogue less and less important. Rather than allowing for the dialogue to have any timing or depth, the film abruptly jams lines together, making it seem as though the movie's editors were having Mountain Dew pumped into their veins.

Please understand; I love Star Wars. I own at least three dozen Star Wars novels, not counting my many guidebooks, my favorite of which is titled Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to The Force. I own at least fifteen Star Wars video games, and there are very few who dare to challenge me at Star Wars Trivial Pursuit. Heck, I even own a Master Replicas Force FX Luke Skywalker Episode IV Electronic Lightsaber.

She's my baby. ^-^

I literally do not understand how anyone could not like Star Wars; it's a completely alien concept to my mind. I love everything that makes up the universe of The Clone Wars. Despite this, I can't simply accept Clone Wars as a film. The upcoming TV series will probably succeed where the movie failed, but that's not good enough. Clone Wars is one of the most poorly-executed films that I have seen in recent memory. It's worse than Tomb Raider 2, The Mummy 3, and Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. I feel as if George Lucas himself has tortured me for two painful hours of my life.

They didn't even ask me any questions...

Do yourself a MASSIVE favor and DO NOT SEE THIS FILM. It's not worth your time or your childrens'. Instead of paying for a movie ticket, go buy an action figure from the movie; you'll have more fun with that.

Justice League: The New Frontier

2008-08-13T00:57:00.004-05:00

Yet another "DC Universe Original Animated Movie," Justice League: The New Frontier is an adaptation of the graphic novel DC: The New Frontier.

This film is made for the fans. It makes very little effort to explain the DC Universe, and assumes that the viewer already knows the basics of all the characters. If you didn't know that Wonder Woman had an invisible jet, you're in trouble.
The film, while faithful to the original comic, shows different parts of the story, while still telling the same tale. However, like the original story, it shows many seemingly unrelated stories that ultimately meet in one final battle.

Set in the 1950s era of comics, there are two main conflicts in New Frontier. First of all is the battle against "The Center," an unknown malevolent being of immense power. The second conflict revolves around politics, and the ramifications of superheroes being present in the Cold War.

If there is a main character in New Frontier, it is Hal Jordan, who is destined to become the Green Lantern. His origin story is very compelling, and serves as an excellent overall character arc, giving a sense of completeness to this otherwise jumbled story.

The artistic style of this film is amazing. The way in which 1950s comic book art has been merged with modern animation is astounding. Even the voice acting fits the setting perfectly. Superman's New Frontier voice would sound odd in today's era, but for the Cold War era it fits perfectly.

There are some elements of New Frontier that don't work as well, such as the shallow look at the political elements of the story. Additionally, the sheer number of storylines keeps many of them down to a reduced screen time that does not allow for them to be fully developed. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Martian Manhunter all have storylines in addition to Hal Jordan's. While it could be said that the story would be better off without the "baggage" of the extra storylines, I believe that they add a great deal, showing how the events of the world are affecting everyone from small-time vigilantes to the greatest heroes of all time.

In the end, Justice League: The New Frontier is jumbled, yet still enjoyable, and great fun for comics fans. The artistic style alone is enough to make it worth watching, and I have to say that I'm very glad to have it in my DVD collection.

7/10

Superman: Doomsday

2008-08-12T23:51:00.001-05:00

Superman: Doomsday was the first in a new line of direct-to-DVD animated films by DC Comics. It takes place in its own fictional universe, having no relation to the previous animated DC stories.
These new DC animated films have been purposely made for a PG-13 audience, containing blood, mild adult themes, and some language. Of course, there's nothing sensationalistic about the new, more mature content. It's all only there to tell a deeper story.

Superman: Doomsday is an animated "adaptation" of the Death and Return of Superman story from the early 90s. As the best-selling comic book story of all time, expectations were very high for this film, especially considering the fact that it was being directed by Bruce Timm, the director of Batman: The Animated Series, Superman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond, and Justice League. Superman: Doomsday is essentially the hybrid child of Superman: The Animated Series and The Death and Return of Superman, but it sadly fails to live up to either tale.

The Death and Return of Superman (hereafter referred to as DRS) was set in the mainstream DC Comics Universe, where every other DC superhero lived alongside Superman in the same fictional world. Throughout the dramatic story, it was clearly shown that no other hero was equipped to stop the rampage of Doomsday, the seemingly indestructible monster that only favored death and destruction. After leaving a path of destruction and beating the Justice League to a bloody pulp, Doomsday continued on towards Metropolis, engaging with Superman in a battle that ended in both their deaths. Superman's memorial was perhaps the most emotionally powerful element of DRS, as it showed virtually every superhero in existence honoring the death of their greatest friend and ally. That scene was a universal acknowledgement that Superman was and is the greatest hero that ever lived.
Of course, Superman, being the Christ-like figure that he is, was resurrected. It has been strongly hinted that he will never truly die, and will always fight for the cause of good.

The most interesting point of this story is that it highlights the fact that Superman is the ultimate hero. Throughout DRS, it is shown that although not everyone is fond of Superman, ultimately they need him. Superman represents the goodness and hope of the world, and, for the sake of mankind, he must persist.

Superman: Doomsday does a poor job of illustrating this point. No mention is made of Superman's iconic significance, and only those close to him are shown mourning. Furtermore, the entire film seems rushed, making the scenes that should seem dramatic become less than satisfactory, and often boring.

Unlike Superman: The Animated Series, Superman: Doomsday does not have the kind of pacing that serves an animated dramatic tale. Its short running time keeps the immensity of the subject matter crammed into a quick, unsatisfying story.

The choice of voice actors is not particularly pleasing. While Lex Luthor sounds pleasantly slimy and serpentlike, Superman himself sounds very raspy and rough, far from his calm-and-welcoming-yet-commanding voice from Superman: The Animated Series. If the voice cast from the previous Superman iterations had been kept, it might have made the film a bit better.

Another odd choice was the decision to alter so much of the story. While the basic facts are the same (Superman fights Doomsday, dies, and returns), the other major details are left out. The mourning of the Justice League is omitted (as is their very presence in the film's universe), and other major storyline developments are oversimplified. While some of these choices make sense, others are rather odd.

The action in the film is not amazing or terribly clever, but it is generally good, and enjoyable.

Honestly, this film has enough good qualities that, with the right overall plot development, it could have been an overall positive viewing experience. However, with the complete lack of emotional impact that Superman: Doomsday delivers, I can't recommend it.

3/10.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-29T10:49:00.004-05:00

The comic book is an odd work of literature. In truth, its name is graphic novel, but history has taught many to write it off as a one-dimensional story based in childish indulgence. This is often still the truth. Life is more easily viewed through the optimistic eyes of a child, where darkness is vanquished in the name of justice, and the world goes on without sacrifice.
However, the graphic novel is not always so simple-minded.

The superhero is an ideal: the concept of justice incarnate. Through the pages of so-called "comic books," stories are told that break the bonds of normality, allowing for the concepts of truth, justice, chaos, and evil to manifest as physical entities; as heroes and villains.
Nearly all comic book-based films follow the same basic plot: a hero is born, a villain rises, and the hero ends the rampage of the villain--often times with the villain dying by his own hand. Unfortunately, this formula is simple, and superhero films rarely make the attempt to create a wholly believable world in support of their tale. Perhaps to their detriment, this formula has become the staple of superhero stories. In many cases, however, graphic novels transcend this simple plot. As a result, modern myths emerge, and philosophical debates rage within the confines of ink and paper.
The Dark Knight is one such story.

While the costumes were not traditional superhero fare, Batman Begins still followed the basic superhero film plot. What made it different, however, was the way that the film was presented. Rather than relying purely on suspension of disbelief, the film made every possible attempt to convince the audience that what was happening on the screen was real--that what was being shown was something that could actually happen. In a sense, the film fulfilled Superman: The Movie's promise to make viewers "believe a man can fly."
The Dark Knight takes every element of Begins to its fullest extent, going deeper and darker than any comic book film has ever dared to go.

This is not a film for the fainthearted. It is not made for children. Although its PG-13 rating is technically accurate to the level of on-screen content, the sheer level of realistic fear-inspiring imagery--although not gratuitous--is more befitting of an R rating. Although every child is different, and there are exceptions to every rule, my general statement is this: children should not see this film.

Much has been said about Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. All the rumors are true; his performance is both flawless and terrifying. Any further discussion here would spoil the plot.

The film is expertly made. All possible plot holes are filled, though this does perhaps get in the way of the film's storytelling, as it requires immense amounts of dialogue that can be difficult to follow. The only other possibly negative aspect about the film's quality is the fact that the action scenes do not always allow the viewer a clear picture of what is happening. This is a deliberate move on the part of the director in order to keep the focus on the story rather than the action. It's an odd move for an action-heavy film, but it is ultimately serviceable.

The true power of the film, however, is not the cinematography, the acting, or the visual effects. Those elements are important and truly incredible in their own right, but are ultimately not the true value of the film. The film's true value is in its ability to make the viewer think; to harness the outlandish elements of fantasy, forge them into a frightening real-world image, and use them to delve into philosophical and sociological issues in ways that no other genre can.

The basic idea behind The Dark Knight is that "things get worse before they get better." The events of Batman Begins have caused a reaction within the city of Gotham. Batman's war on crime has upset the balance of power, and now criminals such as the Joker are appearing as a counterbalance to his influence. In truth, the crime in Gotham city is so powerful that it exists almost as a metaphysical entity. Batman represents hope for Gotham, but is a virus to its underworld. In this sense, the Joker exists as an antibody; the natural reaction of the underworld to the invading presence of Batman. The character of the Joker is simple: he is an agent of chaos. If Batman's goal is to bring justice and peace to Gotham, then the Joker is the personification of the destruction that Batman struggles to prevent. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the dichotomy of these two characters is the fact that they both refuse to kill each other, simply because of their own personal philosophies. In truth, they represent opposite sides of the spectrum, and as long as one exists, so must the other. Ultimately, however, their battle is not for each other, but for the city.

The city of Gotham is treated almost as a character itself. If anything, The Dark Knight's story is a dissertation on human sociology. Both Batman and the Joker have deep personal beliefs about society, and their battle against one another is perhaps more philosophical than physical. While Batman's goal is to act as a symbol, inspiring hope in the people of Gotham, the Joker simply wants to prove a point: that deep down, every human being is flawed and twisted. According to the Joker, all it takes is one bad day--one dark tragedy--to drive someone over the edge; to make them fall from the light.
This belief is what drives the Joker, and is therefore what drives the conflict of the film. The good people of Gotham--Batman, Jim Gordon, and new D.A. Harvey Dent--work together to stop the Joker, each man with a slightly different approach as to exactly how it should be done.

Batman acts as a symbolic vigilante, inspiring fear in the underworld.
Jim Gordon acts as a courageous soldier in Gotham's war on crime, despite the fact that many of the men under his command are corrupt themselves.
Harvey Dent acts as a political leader, inspiring hope rather than fear. Dent is Gotham's Shining White Knight, acting as a leader rather than a vigilante, working with the law rather than outside it.

The varying beliefs of the characters are tested through the many bloody conflicts that wage across Gotham, and it is only through these horrible battles that truth can emerge. This conflict is portrayed in so lifelike a manner that it cannot be simply dismissed as mere fantasy; it is a frighteningly realistic nightmare: a shadow of what could be.

Interestingly, the disturbing tone of the story mirrors the Batman character himself. In this way, the story of the film explores its main character in an epic sense, applying the events of the story to the architecture of Bruce Wayne's psyche. Batman is not the friendly neighborhood hero that Adam West so iconically portrayed decades ago. Though he does not kill, he strikes with cruelty and vengeance. He breaks the legs of injustice, crippling its foothold on the lives of the weak. He is a dark avenger, fighting not with the intent to heal, but to bring that which is corrupted to justice. If evil is alive, then Batman is the disease that will end that life. He is a silent protector, striking not from the light, but the shadows. He is The Dark Knight.

Get Smart

2008-06-20T17:35:00.003-05:00

Meh.

What, you want an actual review?
...fine.

This film has a great premise, and over a hundred classic episodes of comedy material to draw from. Unfortunately, the direction of the film ironically lacks the timing that was shown in the trailer for the film.

Honestly, the style an tone shown in that trailer is exactly what should have been done for the movie itself. Instead, the movie takes a far more fast-paced action-oriented approach, which unfortunately does not work well with Steve Carell's comedic style.

Probably the most odd part of the film is that it spends a great deal of screen time explaining the idea that Agent 99 is not actually as young as Anne Hathaway appears, but is in fact Max's age and simply had plastic surgery to appear young.
This does not help the fact that Anne Hathaway is TOO YOUNG FOR STEVE CARELL. -_-

If the film had been edited more tightly, I would have been more than happy with it. However, the film resorted to cheap laughs and a style that did not support Steve Carell's style.

Watch it on TV or DVD later this year, but don't spend money on it in the theaters. It's not worth it.

4/10.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-22T19:00:00.001-05:00

Honestly, the film is so badly done that I don't even want to honor it with a review.

Go see Speed Racer instead.

:P

EDIT:
I will one day return and give this film a review. Just not now.

Prince Caspian

2008-05-16T19:00:00.001-05:00

In December of 2005, The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was released in theaters. While not necessarily very deep, it was very charming. Every bit of every scene was filled with magic and wonder, and was constantly interesting despite a lack of action. Prince Caspian, on the other hand, is quite the opposite.

The first Narnia film ended with a sense of wonder and curiosity; the second begins with a close-up of a screaming, pain-ridden pregnant woman. This scene is in no way comical. In fact, it is somewhat disturbing considering Narnia's reputation for child-like innocence. However, this scene quickly sets up the conflict which is the central focus of the entire film. From the start, it is clear that every shot in the film was carefully done, and each scene is nearly poetic in its symmetry and beauty.

However, for a long while, the cinematography is the only interesting part of the film. While it's always great to see the characters we know from the first film, they don't even know what they're doing for the first half of the story. They spend the first hour of the film traversing a Narnia that has been ridden of magic, with storytelling that is similarly ridden of its magical charm.

The story itself doesn't entirely make sense, and, due to the fact that it generally follows the book's plot (though with many additions and a few character modifications), unfortunately lacks a strong conclusion.

Fortunately, the battle scenes nearly make up for everything. While I always imagined that Narnia had the potential for great action sequences, LWW (the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) was a far more peaceful film, and didn't take Narnia's battle potential to the fullest degree.

My favorite character in Narnia has always been Peter. When I saw his fighting style in the Battle of Beruna (the end of LWW), I knew that I'd found a pretty accurate visual representation of how I'd fight if someone gave me my choice of weapons and armor. I seriously would love a suit of armor like Peter's. I'd wear it all the time. ^-^

Unfortunately, in LWW he was young and inexperienced, and couldn't really hold his own against the White Witch (though he gave her a really great fight for someone at his age and skill level).
In Prince Caspian, however, he has lived for years in Narnia, and has had time to nearly perfect his swordfighting skills. He was incredible.

SPOILERS ENSUE:
There was one scene where I thought "it'd be awesome if he took down that guy by parrying to the right, spinning to the left, then slashing horizontally across his back" (because that's exactly what I would have done; it's one of my signature moves). Half a second later, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PETER DOES. I got totally excited, not just because I saw a reflection of my own fighting style, but because of the level of skill that it shows. It's basically a move that simultaneously shrugs off an enemy's attack and casually kills him (or at least slashes his spine. ^-^). That move shows that you're on a level far above your opponent, and stand among the elite.
I have yet to successfully pull that move off. But that's beside the point...

Towards the last half hour of the film, I thought to myself "all I really wanted was for a nice, long, one-on-one duel between Peter and some high-ranking badguy, but it's probably too late now." Five minutes later, IT HAPPENED. O_O
I was ecstatic.
Peter's beheading of the Telmarine was my favorite part of the film. I clapped and cheered (which, if you know me, is quite a rare thing).

I've decided that I've had it with purists. Yes, Peter's attitude isn't perfect like it was in the book. Yes, there is a minor subplot with Susan and Caspian. Yes, they added an action scene. I DON'T CARE. Honestly, the original books don't go into enough detail or realism anyway. The characters are rather two-dimensional, serving only to follow along with the plot points rather than actually develop as realistic characters. The fact that Peter was accustomed to being High King and had trouble being a humble boy again is only natural, and makes sense. Furthermore, it makes for great development as he re-learns to be humble and effectively submit to Aslan's will.

In the end, Prince Caspian was mixed. I think that LWW was better overall, but Caspian's action scenes were far superior, and the entire film had greater depth.

EDIT: Check out my updated (and much more thorough) thoughts on the film here:
Eight Months Later

Speed Racer

2008-05-09T00:08:00.001-05:00

Before I delve into my review of this movie, let me preface it with my personal story of how I came to see this unique film.

I saw the trailer for Speed Racer in the theater before Iron Man. I had a very low opinion of it. I knew of the Wachowski Brothers' obsession with anime homages, and I figured that this was another film that would only appeal to those who were already in love with the original TV series (which I was not). I quickly dismissed the film as "trash" that no one in their right mind would actually want to see.
When the film released in theaters last month, I went through my usual routine of listening to IGN.com's podcasts. On the IGN Movies podcast (which is hosted by several editors whose opinions I greatly respect) it was said that Speed Racer is in fact an "incredible" film, but is also somewhat of a concept film, and would likely not make sense to most professional film reviewers. I fancy myself a fan of concept films, so at this point I began to consider Speed Racer a possible film-to-see.
When the opportunity came to see the movie last weekend, I took it.
I am infinitely glad that I did.

From the start of the film, I decided to accept it for what it was. I wasn't going to judge it for lacking depth, but rather enjoy it for its amazingly well-crafted visual design. The first several seconds of the film are a kaleidescope of contrasting colors, not unlike the original Willy Wonka (not that Johnny Depp trash). Oh, hey, just for fun, here's the first seven minutes of the film, kindly posted online by Warner Bros and Yahoo:

As you can see, it's a color-filled candyland of speed. Honestly, though, those first few minutes aren't quite enough to hook you on the film. After another 15-30 minutes, the main conflict kicks in, and the simple-yet-still-enjoyable plot will have you cheering (perhaps only inwardly) for Speed Racer in his quest to change the world.

The character of Speed Racer is remarkable, even among the countless young-and-somewhat-naive-hero characters that--for better or for worse--permeate the modern cinema.
While characters like Peter Parker are prone to failing by making bad personal decisions, Speed Racer does better. He is indeed young and slightly immature, but he has a sense of right and wrong that surpasses his immaturity. He isn't stupid (though he is indeed annoying as a young child during the first few minutes of the film), and his wisdom makes up for his lack of experience.
It's refreshing to have a character that does not make mistakes merely because the "Bible of filmmaking" dictates that he must.
It makes for a character that the viewer can genuinely support, and makes the audience feel as if they are part of the Racer family, desperately hoping for his success.
I didn't anticipate liking Speed as a character, but I was pleasantly surprised. The rest of the characters are great as well.
(For the guys in the audience, Christina Ricci plays Speed's girlfriend. Which is pretty freakin' awesome.)

I must say that, as someone who had never watched more than a few minutes of the Speed Racer anime, I was initially skeptical of the idea that a race car driver could somehow be a world-saving hero. However, the film's story shows (in perhaps too complicated a fashion) the importance of the races due to company investments. Furthermore, the film establishes the importance of racing to the Racer family (okay, that sentence came out oddly), and makes the races feel important. The audience cares about the races because they have a deep significance to the characters, much in the same way that dancing movies illustrate the importance of dancing to the main characters.
(No, I have not seen many dancing movies. My mother has. I just happened to walk by several times. Honestly.)

The real draw of this film, however, is the visual style. Many films, from the Spy Kids series to Ang Lee's Hulk have attempted to merge the style of cartoons with live-action. It has not worked very well. If anything, it normally looks badly made (Hulk) or perhaps badly made on purpose, as a joke (Spy Kids).
Speed Racer is the first film to make it work, and work beautifully.
While there are a few scenes in which the green screen work is obvious, the vast majority of the film looks outstanding. Furthermore, the physics of everything from the cars to the characters looks correct. I still cannot figure out how they did it, but somehow, although it's obvious that the laws of physics are being ignored, it somehow doesn't look "wrong." It just looks fun, and that's exactly what it is.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that Speed Racer is a stupid film as I initially did. Do yourself a favor and see the film in theaters before it's gone, even if you have to see it in the dollar theater. This film was made for the big screen. Don't watch it on home video unless you can see it on a big screen (preferably on Blu-Ray disc, as detail and color is everything in this movie).

Surprising though it may seem, I thoroughly enjoyed Speed Racer far more than I did Iron Man. Though I understand that many will disagree with me, I believe that this film deserves to be rated according to what it truly is: a film that delves into all manner of visual fun, creating a world in which the most outlandish things are plausible, and where adrenaline-fueled fun goes on forever.

9 out of 10.

Go Speed Racer, Go.

Iron Man

2008-05-02T19:00:00.002-05:00

Iron Man is one of my favorite superheroes for two reasons: the suit and the man behind it. Those two aspects ultimately define whether or not any Iron Man story is good. Fortunately, the movie gets these two aspects down very well.
The character of Tony Stark is very different than most other superheroes. He is not the embodiment of good that personifies Superman, nor is he a young boy like Spider-Man, Luke Skywalker, and many others. In fact, by his own admission, Tony Stark is "not the hero type." He is brilliant beyond measure, yet obsessed with indulging in the many privileges that his immense riches provide. Although he is shown to have created incredibly brilliant technologies, he is generally shown to be self-indulgent, constantly seeking after thrills. These include fast cars, women, and (although not shown much in this first film) alcohol.

However, in this film (minor spoiler alert; skip the rest of the paragraph if you have not seen the movie), he is shown to change slightly. After being taken captive by terrorists, he is no longer shown chasing after women or indulging in other selfish activities. He seems to appreciate his relationship with his assistant, Pepper Potts, more than he did before, as he realizes that she is his only real family. This seems slightly odd for the character, as he never completely stops indulging himself in the comics. It's doubtless that he'll be shown to still have some of his trademark selfishness in the films to come.

One notable aspect of this film is the fact that it does not rely on the usual "superhero" style of dialogue. In most comic book film adaptations, the dialogue is written in a very symbolic manner. This often gives the stories a very poetic feel, with the characters revealing their motivations and moral beliefs plainly. Iron Man takes a slightly more realistic approach, with less emphasis on good-vs-evil symbolism, though the moral implications are still clear. I personally believe that this approach is more appropriate for Marvel comics films, which generally have more human characters, as opposed to DC's main heroes, who are somewhat closer to symbols rather than dynamic characters. It's always odd to me when Spider-Man speaks in moral absolutes when he is not absolutely moral.
Iron Man's dialogue is very natural, and takes advantage of the fact that Robert Downey Jr is a hilarious man. He can make any scene funny just by his mere presence. This is fortunate for the movie, as the somewhat limited budget for the film keeps the action scenes few and far-between, forcing the "Tony Stark" scenes to shine despite the fact that they lack dazzling special effects.
This works for the most part, though the lack of action in the Iron Man suit is disappointing.
However, what we do see of the suit is amazing. The CG is nearly flawless, and very entertaining. A mix of bad*** action and humor keeps the scenes constantly exciting, though the final battle seems somewhat flat compared to the action scene preceding it.

The comic book references in this film were astounding. They were great for comics fans, yet didn't reduce the enjoyment for others. If anything, the references added curiosity for uninformed fans, which can only be good for the sequel (already scheduled for release in 2010).

All in all, Iron Man was very good. It wasn't amazing in my opinion, but it definitely has potential for the sequels. My only outstanding complaint is that there wasn't enough action, though that's not something to fault the production team for.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2007-07-11T00:00:00.172-05:00

At the end of The Goblet of Fire, Hermione remarks, "everything's going to change now, isn't it?" Truer words were never spoken. After the shocking ending of the last film, The Order of the Phoenix takes an extremely serious turn.

The entire world of Harry Potter feels very different this time. The wizarding world is still exactly the same as it always was, but it feels much more grounded. Before, Harry Potter was a fictional universe with entirely different rules from reality, only seeking to be the same as our world through the genuineness of its characters. Now, new director David Yates takes the series in a different direction by approaching the story from a very real-world angle and adding the more unrealistic layers of magic on top like icing on a cake.

The re-working of the universe works, and it's not so different that it's not immediately recognizable. All the characters are better-written and acted here than they ever have been before. Ron seems to have finally gotten past being stereotyped as "the one who's afraid of everything," and has become a brave, fierce friend. Hermione has recovered from her bout of overemotional panic from last year, and is back to her brilliant and sharp-witted self from years 1-3.

Gary Oldman puts in a brilliant performance as Sirius Black. We haven't gotten to know him much at all in the films, but here he makes us feel the familial connection between Harry and Sirius within minutes.

Dark-Arts-teacher-of-the-year and villain of the film, Dolores Umbridge, is somewhere between entertaining, frustrating, and horrifying. She's as stubborn and bigoted as the Dursleys, as senseless and bureaucratic as the most evil politician, and as heartless as any dark wizard. She really does an amazing job of making you hate her.

New student Luna Lovegood is a total joy to watch. She has little-to-nothing to do with the overall plot, but she's so funny that it doesn't really matter.

Perhaps most striking of all is Helena Bonham-Carter's performance as Bellatrix Lestrange. She's the very definition of demented, and totally captivating.

The visual effects are mostly excellent, partially because they (for the most part) merely enhance the visual action, rather than dominating it as previous films did. Grawp the giant unfortunately looks a bit cartoonish, but he's not around long enough for it to be a serious problem.

The visual style of The Order of the Phoenix is rather desaturated. The Prisoner of Azkaban was similarly devoid of bright color, but somehow still felt vivid. Order of the Phoenix doesn't quite manage to do that, however. It seems to be somewhat more detail-focused, with less dramatic flourish. Still, though, there's something to be said for creating a realistic Hogwarts; it makes the drama feel all the more real.

The music here is very good in certain ways, but doesn't make use of strong themes. The main theme of the series ("Hedwig's Theme") is barely heard at all. The music perfectly supports the on-screen drama, but that's all it does. It doesn't stand out in any particular way. Whereas some of the themes from the first four were breathtaking and worthy of being listened to separately from the movies, the music here is so subdued that it's not really worth listening to on its own. Of notable exception is the theme for the Order of the Phoenix itself, but that's literally one track out of the eighteen on the soundtrack.

One of the best things about this movie are the wizard battles. For the first time, we get actual wizard battles. We've always heard hints about the great war against Voldemort in the past, but never quite knew what that might have looked like. We learned a little about dueling in The Chamber of Secrets and The Goblet of Fire, but this is the first time that we really see fully-trained wizards in all-out battle—fighting alongside our teenage heroes, who've become rather skilled themselves. It's great to finally have what can really be called a fight scene in Harry Potter.

The one-on-one duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore is beyond jaw-dropping. It's clever, imaginative, and epic.

Overall, this is a very good movie. It's got its problems, but none of them make the film anything less than great.

8/10

Transformers

2007-07-02T19:00:00.002-05:00

If you didn't immediately think "AWESOME!" when you heard there was a Transformers live-action film coming out, you are either a girl, a fool, or a pessimist. In the case of the latter one, you have no business watching cartoons anyway, so shut up and leave. Now.

On a faraway planet named Cybertron, life exists not as anything biological or organic, but as something mechanical; what we might call "robotic", but much more complex. These robotic life-forms have the ability to "transform" between two forms: a humanoid robot mode and an alternate vehicle mode (anything from a car to a jet fighter). Two factions of "transformers" exist: the Autobots, who favor peace, and the evil Decepticons, who favor destruction. The Decepticons (inevitably) turn against the Autobots, and a civil war breaks out. This war lasts many eons, but finally reaches the point where the entire planet, both in resources and population, is nearly exhausted. The battle between the heroic Autobots and the evil Decepticons eventually reaches Earth, where the two factions discover Earth's massive natural resources, which would enable one side or the other to win the war.
And so begins "the Great War"; a long struggle between the forces of the Autobots and the Decepticons, with humanity caught in-between.

One particularly interesting and unique part of the Transformers saga is the fact that the transformers really have no reason to protect humanity. Humans are like ants to the towering, powerful, and technologically advanced Cybertronians. If they so choose, the transformers can easily squash the forces of mankind and take the planet's resources for themselves (and therefore win their ages-old conflict). However, the Autobots' leader—the wise, moral, and powerful Optimus Prime—states that "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings," thus the Autobots therefore side with humanity, even if it means potentially losing their war. The Decepticons, meanwhile, have no care for humanity, and will gladly kill or manipulate mankind for their own purposes. The Decepticons already outnumber and outgun the Autobots, so the decision of the Autobots to protect humanity is somewhere between a brave, moral move and a death sentence. This kind of heroism (and the conflict against the Decepticons' evil) is what makes the characters in Transformers great despite their lack of real depth.

The film stays mostly true to the original "feel" of the series. Staples of the animated series, such as the human characters and the Autobot HQ are gone (or at least altered), but the basics are the same. Aside from the (mildly deep) moral conflict, however, the Transformers film is rather devoid of any sort of moral message, focusing on action, incredible special effects, and humor. When I say "incredible special effects", I mean INCREDIBLE. This movie is like watching Jurassic Park with machines.

Steve Jablonsky's musical score is absolutely wonderful, with memorable themes and a kind of sweeping orchestral power that's rarely heard in modern cinema outside of fantasy epics like The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. On rare occasions, rock music breaks in, giving a much needed break of fun (notably during a very fun chase scene).

This film is really a live-action “upgrading” of a cartoon. It has a somewhat cartoony feel, with giant robots walking around and acting like humans. The amazing visual effects make the transformers' incredible mobility totally believable, but the situations and dialogue are somewhat Saturday morning-esque. If you walk into the film expecting a sci-fi Saving Private Ryan, quickly slap yourself and pretend you’re eight years old again. The film’s plot and dialogue is not realistic in the least; it's just an amazingly cool cartoon. While it's true that real-life combatants don't face each other one-on-one, spouting lines such as “It’s just you and me… One shall stand, one shall fall,” the heroes of Saturday morning cartoons certainly do. While these situations and lines may seem unrealistic, they serve as a kind of animated poetry, translating the overarching moral issues and character motivations into a simple, visual format.

Transformers may not impress those who don't appreciate the “fun” feel of cartoons, and it will certainly not impress cynics or pessimists. To fully enjoy the film, one must suspend their reliance on the rigid ways of the world, and see the film for what it truly is:

Photorealistic giant robots smashing things.

In all honestly, while the humor may hold the interest of those uninterested in the spectacular action or the sheer coolness of transforming robots, any viewer can likely decide whether or not they will enjoy the film just by deciding if the above quote appeals to them.

At the same time, there are plenty of problems in the film. The budget was a bit low for such an undertaking, and the only way to make the Transformers look real was to severely limit their screentime. This means that the plot does not truly begin to revolve around the bots themselves until halfway into the movie, and even then they remain strangely off-camera.

What we get instead is divided between government drama, military action, and silliness involving the character of Sam Witwicky.
The government story isn't terrible, but it's definitely a little pointless and silly. The military action is, in large part, pretty great. Sam's story is loosely connected to the transformers' tale, but most of it revolves around his desperate struggles to find a hot girlfriend. Sam is moderately relatable, but he comes off as extremely shallow for most of the film. He feels rather pointless and shoved in.

The "female love interest" of the movie is Mikaela Banes, played poorly (or perhaps perfectly?) by Megan Fox. It's obvious that Mikaela only exists in the movie to be the hot chick; there's no reason for her character to exist whatsoever. She's seemingly even more shallow than Sam, less likable, and entirely useless.

Finally, there's a certain amount of infantile humor in Transformers that's just inexcusable. Have you ever wanted to see a giant robot urinate oil on a guy? Do you love masturbation jokes? Then you'll love this. Also, get out of my sight. You make me sick.
Some of the humor isn't offensive; it's just bad. One scene involves the Autobots "comically" hiding from Sam's parents in the Witwickys' backyard. It's not funny, and it likely only drew special effects money away from other scenes that could have further developed the Autobot characters.

There are a ton of problems with Transformers. And yet, for all its flaws, the bits we get with the transformers themselves are so glorious and jaw-dropping that they make the entire movie enjoyable by extension.
Transformers might not technically be a great film, but it is, ultimately, a very fun one.

7/10.

(written 5/7/07, rewritten 7/1/11)

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

2007-06-15T00:11:00.000-05:00

It sucked worse than the first.
I actually saw this film for free, and still somehow felt like I wasted my money.

1/5

Casino Royale

2006-11-16T00:00:00.153-06:00

You know his name.
You know his number.
You know his legend.

But you don't know a thing about him anymore.

Casino Royale is a reboot of the Bond franchise, restarting the chronology and reimagining the style. Although the story takes place in what is apparently the year 2006, it also takes place before the "original" Bond film, Dr. No. The "timeline" isn't ultimately the important thing in this film, however. What really matters is the way that the character of James Bond is reworked.

In this film, Bond—as portrayed by new actor Daniel Craig—is not the two-dimensional, super-smooth secret agent that he was in the past. Instead, he is a much more realistic character, one with obvious strengths and weaknesses. He is a "blunt instrument" of MI6, exceedingly arrogant and forceful. Fortunately, he has enough charm, cleverness, and physical ability to make his way through the endlessly torturous challenges set before him.

It's been said that Bond films are often made with the legacy of the Bond series in mind, and should be viewed within that framework. Casino Royale, however, is simply a great film in its own right. It does away with the overly grandiose and nigh-cartoonish stunts of the past, replacing them with realistic-yet-still-jaw-dropping modern style.

The action is brutal and relentless, riding on a rush of adrenaline and only stopping when the audience is on the brink of exhaustion. Many of the scenes are so complex and awe-inspiring that they stand up with the best in film history.

The characters' interactions are remarkably well-done. In particular, Bond's dialogue with Vesper Lynd (the "Bond girl" of the film) is stellar. Vesper and Bond share a slightly antagonistic-yet-flirtatious relationship, and grow together realistically. By the end of the film, the audience learns to care for Vesper, much as Bond himself does.

The character of M reappears, once again played by Judy Dench. She is extremely important to the story, as her dialogue highlights Bond's character—and charts his progression. The character of Felix Leitner, a CIA ally of Bond's seen in many previous films, makes a return here, with a kind of comforting effect.

There are a few absences in Casino Royale that are sorely missed. The character of Q does not appear, nor do any of Bond's "gadgets." (In fact, aside from a super-advanced defibrillator, Bond has nothing that even remotely resembles technology any better than what the average civilian could obtain.) There are no hints at the greater Bond mythos, such as the evil organization S.P.E.C.T.R.E. One might say that this film is so intensely focused on story and character that the mythos comes second.

Before this review finishes, I have to say one thing:
I love this movie and what it has done to the Bond franchise. I am very interested in Daniel Craig's version of Bond, and I care about what happens to him. However, to me, Daniel Craig is not James Bond. He is a much more realistic character, yes. A much more compelling one, in fact. But he lacks the smoothness and style that the other Bond actors possessed—notably Craig's immediate predecessor, Pierce Brosnan. This bothers me. I still greatly enjoy the film, but it's not exactly a Bond film to me.

All of that said, however, it's still a great movie, despite any of my personal gripes.

9/10

Superman Returns

2006-06-30T19:00:00.002-05:00

"Returns" has been the title for a thousand remakes. However, it does not always hold much meaning.
Batman Returns was really just another Batman movie. It had nothing to do with Batman returning, since he never actually left. Superman, however, has been gone from the big screen for nearly two decades, and there hasn't been a Superman film that was actually good in even longer. Besides the fact that Superman III wasn't very good, and IV was terrible, much of the reason that we haven't seen a Superman film in so long is that the world has seemingly moved on from Superman. After all, if we are to believe Hollywood, chivalry is dead. There are no true heroes anymore. Look at Wolverine, Daredevil, The Punisher, etc. They're not heroes, they're anti-heroes: those who break the rules and don't care much for any kind of morals. Even the characters that come close to being truly heroic, such as Spider-Man, are ultimately flawed. After all, who wants to watch a movie about a boy scout who can seemingly do anything?

This film's story neatly mirrors reality by making a story in which Superman has been gone for years, and the world has seemingly moved on without him. Or have they?

Before I went to see this film, I rented the original 1978 Superman: The Movie. I was quite pleased and somewhat overjoyed with parts of it, but other times I thought "Oh, so this is why people hate Superman". However, Superman Returns is a semi-sequel to Superman I & II, so it's a nice idea to sit and watch them just for background information. As I said before, I didn't like parts of the original film, and I found myself hoping to death that this new movie wouldn't follow so closely in its footsteps. My hope came through.

As previously stated, Returns is about Superman's return to Earth after an absence of several years. Clark Kent returns to Metropolis only to discover that Lois Lane, the woman he loved, is now engaged, and has a son (yes, she had a son before she was married. Watch Superman II for a hint at the whole story). Even worse, Lois is angry at Superman for leaving, and won a Pulitzer Prize (like the Oscars for books) for her article titled Why the World Doesnt Need Superman.

Now, this isn't a simple "just kill off the fiancee whos really a jerk" scenario. Her fiancee is a really good guy, and by the end of the film I was hoping desperately that he wouldnt be killed, even knowing that his life would seal Clark off from Lois.

Meanwhile, Lex Luthor, the greatest criminal mind of all time, is hatching an Earth-shattering scheme to both take over the world and annihilate billions of people.

The film starts with a bang. No, really. Not even just an Earth-shattering bang; it's much bigger than that. This briefly stunning visual effects shot is followed by a series of mediocre ones, although considering the multi-planetary scale of the project, it's more than forgivable.

The first twenty-or-so minutes of the movie are very slow. I sat there hoping and praying that I wouldnt end up agreeing with the one-out-of every-ten reviewers who said it was too slow. My prayers were answered, in the most mind-blowing way possible. I wont ruin it for you. Suffice it to say that nothing on this scale has EVER been successfully done before. In one scene, my mouth dropped open in awe as I whispered, "No, freakin' way..."

Brandon Routh is great as Superman. All the Supermen are different--as each version of the character is different--but Routh's version is possibly my favorite. He successfully pulled off both Clark Kent and Superman, and he did so wonderfully.

Kate Bosworth is.... decent... at Lois Lane. I liked her performance a lot, but she didnt quite look the role. She looked like a princess, yet acted like the traditional tough-as-nails Lois Lane. It didn't quite mesh.

Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor... can I just say awesome-times-infinity and get away with it? He is both chilling and hilarious at the same time. I can't give away any good moments, but he has many of them in this film.

The visual effects of the environment arent ground-breaking, but the effects on Superman himself were simply astounding. They were virtually flawless; I sat there in awe. Everything Superman does looks both real and amazing. The original 1978 film's tagline was "you will believe a man can fly." I believed just the opposite after watching that film. Now, however, I think they really should have re-used that tagline for this film. 'Cause man, I SO believe it this time around.

Returns is directed and produced by Bryan Singer, who directed and produced X-men 1 and 2. I was initially wary of the idea, because Singer is noted for his ability to blend fantasy and reality. I didnt want Superman to be made more real. (After all, hes a guy who flies without wings or a jetpack. Without the fantasy, whats left?) After watching Returns, I realized that Singers talent for realism isnt that he alters the original material, its that he can tell a human story, with realistic people. After that, you can make me believe that, well, people can fly.

Superman isn't outdated, and we haven't moved on past him. By the end of Returns, we see that truth literally appear before our eyes. I've been saying that for years, but cynical people are really stubborn. Ill give you a hint: lose your cynicism before you watch this film. Or keep it, and see if you can really say you dislike the movie by the time the end credits roll.

This was an amazing movie. Unlike X-Men 3, which I disliked the more I thought about it, I only like this film even more now than I did last night.

It was worth waiting for.

Underworld: Evolution

2006-01-20T19:00:00.001-06:00

When I saw Underworld, I thought "where was all the sex and violence?" When I saw the 2006 sequel, Underworld: Evolution, I thought "ah, there it is."
Underworld: Evolution starts off where the first film ended, and begins--refreshingly--with a look at just what it's like to be an immortal. Vampires and Lycans alike cannot eat normal food, and are forced to drink cloned human blood. It's nice to see some actual development of the main characters' everyday lives, now made more complicated with the events of the last film.

As stated before, this film is far more violent than the last. People are repeatedly impaled, eaten, dismembered, and ripped apart. The blood and gore really never stops, and is rather superfluous.
There are also a couple of sex scenes in the film, one of which has a bit of pointless nudity.
This entire film feels as if someone said "the first film didn't have enough sex and violence. Let's add more this time!"

The plot is both convoluted and uninteresting, though it does delve a bit deeper into the Underworld mythology. Because of certain events surrounding Selene at the end of the film, it'll be interesting to see what happens with her if and when another sequel is made.

I really have very little to say about this movie. It's just not very good.

3/10

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

2005-11-18T00:00:00.191-06:00

This is a very weird movie. On one hand, the Harry Potter series has never been more epic. On the other hand, it's never been this pointless.

A huge portion of The Goblet of Fire is dedicated to the "sillier" nature of Harry Potter: the sports, the melodrama between the kids, and the general ridiculousness of the magical world itself. The remainder of the film is dominated by the darkest and most powerful events we've seen yet. On one hand, the sillier stuff works. The kids are teenagers now, and a fair amount of humorously awkward melodrama makes sense. It's largely funny, and works surprisingly well.

There's some weird stuff going on with the cast this year. For one thing, every teenage male main character has extremely long hair for no apparent reason. It's really distracting.

Hermione seems emotionally unstable the entire time. All she does is worry about Harry or get angry at Ron. While her emotional reactions aren't unwarranted, the fact that we get little of the sharp-witted and brilliant Hermione from previous films is disappointing.

Ron seemed to pick this year to act like a suspicious unbelieving jerk towards Harry, without any real reason. Why is Ron suddenly so jealous of Harry? Eleven-year-old Ron was quick to sacrifice himself in the Wizards' Chess game for Harry's sake, but here he suddenly doesn't give his best friend the benefit of a doubt? A normal teenager would probably respond with this type of jealousy and suspicion, but Ron has proven himself to be better than this in the past. It doesn't really make sense, and it's not compelling drama nor humorous comedy. It's just an annoying distraction that could (and perhaps should) have been replaced by the same great trust and friendship that we've seen between Ron and Harry in the past.

Character problems aside, most of the teenagers' acting is slightly questionable this year. It seems like the director was actually encouraging the kids to overact. In a way, it works, since the awkwardness of the situation comes across perfectly. On the other hand, it's a bit distracting.

One notable change from the first three films is a new composer. John Williams' replacement, Patrick Doyle, takes cues from Williams in the tone and style of the music, but crafts a strong score that feels slightly different, yet totally fitting. Harry himself is given a specific musical theme that's woven into the score at various moments of personal drama. Without a doubt, it's one of the most emotionally powerful themes of the entire series.

As in the first two films, much of the story feels like it's jumping through a list of fantastical life-threatening situations. This can be a problem, as it means that the entire movie is basically a highlight reel of the most important events from the books.

The Quidditch World Cup is really fun to see. Prior to this, we've barely seen the magical world outside of Hogwarts and Diagon Alley. Here we finally get to see a bigger picture of the entire wizarding community. It really helps fill in some of the gigantic gaps in Harry Potter lore and paint a better picture of the world we're seeing.

The Yule Ball is a wonderfully funny chance to delve into the teenage angst of the Harry Potter world. With all we see of the trio dealing with grave threats to the school, it's refreshing and fun to see them sit back and just act like humorously awkward teenagers. As if that weren't enough, there's a wizard rock band. Singing such songs as "Magic Works" and "Do the Hippogriff." I mean, seriously. It gets no more ~~ridiculous~~ awesome than that.

The Triwizard Cup challenges are mostly nothing more than action scenes. They are, however, visually stunning and extremely well-directed. Harry's battle with the dragon is so amazingly real-looking that you can't help but feel totally enraptured by the tension of it all. The mermaid scene is perhaps less impressive, but it's still got good elements of fantasy horror and a healthy amount of imagination. The final challenge, the maze, is practically pointless. The danger within the maze is never revealed (aside from a few cantankerous bushes), leaving only a vague undefined threat that doesn't really catch the audience.

The ending battle with Voldemort, however, is so shocking and powerful that it elevates the film far above the level of "decent"-ness that it would have been at otherwise. It brings the story back to the Harry's personal journey and his lifelong fight against Voldemort. Perhaps more importantly, it transitions the Harry Potter series out of the more fun-loving initial four years and throws it abruptly into a much darker and deadly place.

When The Goblet of Fire gets it right, it really gets it right. The return of Voldemort is terrifying, horrific, and powerful. It's also a hugely important event that isn't resolved by the end of the film, thus finally breaking the general rule of self-containment held by prior films. On the other hand, when The Goblet of Fire gets it wrong, it just feels stupid. After dealing with the super-important events of the last film, why are we supposed to care about something as pointless as the Triwizard Tournament? This is a problem in the original book as well, but that doesn't excuse it.

The saving grace of the "pointless" events—the Quidditch World Cup, the Tournament, and the Yule Ball—is that, at the very least, they're entertaining to watch. They get a bit boring on repeat viewings, but they're still reasonably fun. The comedy is highly ridiculous at times, but not quite stupid. It works for the most part.

The filmmakers can't entirely be blamed for the problems with Goblet of Fire; they did just about the best they could with the source material. And, in the end, what's there is still good. It's not as good as Prisoner of Azkaban, but it's definitely a fun movie with a shockingly dark and game-changing ending.

7/10

Fantastic Four

2005-07-08T19:00:00.000-05:00

It sucked.

There's more to be said, but that sums it up pretty well. It was really bad.

1/5

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

2004-06-04T00:00:00.129-05:00

Here, Harry Potter takes a turn for the dark. Harry runs away from home in a fit of anger, discovers that a murderous madman is hunting him, and learns a terrible truth about his parents' murder.

The levity of The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets is mostly exchanged for a kind of shadowy fantasy. New director Alfonso Cuarón manages to craft a much more organic-feeling fantasy world, making the prior two films feel jumbled and almost silly by comparison.

The characters are all a bit better this time around. The kids seem to have all gone through puberty at once, and are about twice as mature as they were last time. Harry in particular gets a rather large dose of grow-up potion, as he is finally forced to realize his potential as a powerful wizard. In the past, Hermione was the only one out of the trio who could effectively use magic of any sort, with Ron and Harry being virtually useless in that regard. Here, Harry is clearly shown to be the most powerful of the three, and it's very cool.

Before the making of this film, the actor who portrayed Dumbledore, Richard Harris, died, and is replaced here by Michael Gambon. The old Dumbledore will be terribly missed, but the new one, while different, is also very compelling. He's perhaps a bit too similar to Gandalf the White from Lord of the Rings, but not to a terribly distracting degree. He's got that certain playfulness that Gandalf lacked, but the old Dumbledore always had plenty of.

Some of the best scenes in the film are the quiet moments between Harry and new teacher Remus Lupin. They have a very strong master/student relationship, and it does a lot to ground the story in real, relatable emotion.

The visual style of Harry Potter is reworked in a darker, more cohesive fashion. While the first two films sometimes felt like a jumble of bright colors, this one has a much more uniform and precise look. Much of the imagery looks as though it's taken out of the absolute best of dark fantasy art.

Many of the horror elements of the film are genuinely scary. The dementors are textbook death monsters, and Remus' transformation into a werewolf is horribly twisted—in a good way.

The visual effects get one notch better. The extremely brief Quidditch scene appears to be entirely made of live-action footage rather than CGI. The CGI creatures seen here are still not entirely perfect, but move realistically enough that it's easy to let it slide. Of special note is the extremely lifelike quality of Buckbeak the hippogriff. He moves and acts like a real animal, complete with all the bird-like quirks that you'd expect.

The music here is truly remarkable. John Williams' score feels far different from the first two films, utilizing an entirely new set of themes and a darker, less bombastic tone. There's still a few places where similarities to the Star Wars prequel scores seem to pop up, but it's likely not the kind of thing that anyone other than soundtrack buffs will recognize.

There are a few problems with the way the story is presented. Sirius Black's entrance portrays him as a madman, but he somehow becomes a likable, rather gentlemanly person in less than ten minutes. Harry is shown to completely change his opinion of Sirius in an instant, going from utter contempt and hate to regarding him as close family. It all happens entirely too fast.
Another confusing point is the final confrontation with the dementors and Harry's Patronus Charm. The animal identities of individual Patronus charms are never explained in the film, thus Harry's belief that his father summoned the stag-shaped Patronus doesn't make any sense. It's not plot-breaking, but it does create a mental stumbling block.
Finally, the last real problem with the film is the fact that it doesn't have a definitive ending. The villain escapes and Sirius' name isn't cleared. The kids discover the truth behind the the Potters' betrayer, but very little comes of it. All in all, Prisoner of Azkaban is more of an in-between chapter than a fully-realized story on its own, and comes off slightly as required viewing for future stories. It's no different than the book, but that doesn't necessarily help it much. At the same time, even if this is no more than an in-between chapter, it's still good enough that it's hardly a chore to get through—and the events of this film, while rather minor in the larger scope of things—do definitely become vastly more important in the sequels.

This really is the best Potter film yet. True, it's not as lighthearted and childishly fun as the initial two, but it's overall more enjoyable and feels every bit as magical as it did before.

8/10

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

2004-03-19T00:00:00.122-06:00

It's been said that Zack Snyder's films have gory, fun, video game-like action, but no heart. This is mostly true of Dawn of the Dead.

The film seems to be divided into three parts. The first act focuses on the main character, a young nurse named Ana. In true zombie film fashion, she goes to sleep peacefully one night, then wakes up the next morning to an apocalyptic nightmare. Ana's story is initially rather boring. While she is a likable character, the script and direction are simply not compelling. The zombies shown in this film are not the slow-moving zombies of tradition, but fast-running, screaming ravagers. While that sounds terrifying in theory, it's not all that scary in final rendition. Rather than the haunting silence of zombie films of the past, this film relies on thrills with action scenes and badly-done suspense. Indeed, some of the film's most horrifying moments are the times in which the zombies are not seen.

The second and largest section of the film begins when Ana meets more survivors of the outbreak. Forming a group, they decide to proceed to a nearby shopping mall, which, being a sealed building filled with food and water, is seemingly a safe haven. At this point, the film begins to focus on the interactions between the various characters, and is a bit more interesting. However, the best part comes when the plot reaches the turning point: when the film stops being a horror film and becomes an action film.
If there's one thing Zach Snyder can direct, it's action. It might not be the most clever or imaginative action, but it's still fun nonetheless.

All in all, however, the film comes off as being somewhat shallow. The characters don't seem to have truly won or lost anything by the film's end, and one wonders what the purpose of the story actually was. There's not enough action for it to be completely enjoyable on an adrenaline-fueled level, there's not enough character for it to be compelling, and there's not enough scares for it to be very thrilling. What's left is an adequate but ultimately non-essential film.

But shooting zombies in the face is still awesome, so it gets a 6.
=D

6/10

Underworld

2003-09-19T19:00:00.000-05:00

Underworld is an odd mix of many positive and negative elements. Some love it, others hate it, and the vast majority of critics simply don't care.

The best aspect of the film by far is its well-imagined fictional world. In this story, vampires and a subsect of werewolves (called "Lycans") have been in conflict for many centuries, and continue their war in today's world. They live as underground gangs, ever looking for new ways to destroy each other. The vampires, using modern technology, have found ways to artificially create human blood, thus removing their need to feed on human beings. Additionally, the Lycans--unlike traditional werewolves--have the ability to completely control their transformations.
The major difference between the two factions is that the Lycans have the advantage of brute strength, while the vampires must avoid sunlight and rely on weaponry in order to stand a chance. Another rather refreshing spark of originality is that Underworld's vampires and werewolves are not supernatural beings at all, nor are they intrinsically malevolent. Instead, their abilities derive from a much more science fiction-esque mutated virus.

Kate Beckinsale plays Selene, a vampire "Death-Dealer" (Lycan hunter). When she meets a young man that may be the key to a long-forgotten secret of both the Lycans and Vampires, she delves into forbidden history, revealing some rather shocking truths.

[Spoilers Ahead]
One of the problems with Underworld is that it tries to make the Lycans into sympathetic victims toward the end of the movie, but it doesn't do it very well. It is revealed that the vampires had enslaved the Lycans many centuries ago, and Selene's father figure, Viktor, executed his own daughter for consorting with the lycan Lucius--the man who is now the leader of the Lycans. This event is what sparked the Lycan/Vampire war. While this twist makes Lucian a bit more sympathetic, the film spends too much time painting him as a crazed brute before this point. I personally never felt much sympathy towards the lycans, and certainly did not see them as heroes (as I believe may have been intended).
[Spoilers End]

A rather surprising thing about the film is that, for an R-rated film, it is extremely light on mature content. For a film about a super-powered, bloody gang war, there is very little gore (aside from one guy's head getting cut in half). Even more surprising was the fact that--despite the film being centered on a vampire Kate Beckinsale wearing a tight black leather outfit--there was absolutely no sexual content whatsoever. I literally sat there after finishing the movie and thought "where was all the sex and violence?"

The style of Underworld is unique in its own way. While it retains a traditional gothic feel, the entire film is seemingly robbed of nearly all color. Furthermore, the image is extremely dark, and often without enough contrast to be able to easily discern what's happening in certain scenes. Another potential flaw of the film is its overly complicated backstory, told mostly through easy-to-miss dialogue. Additionally, the film is very "dry." There are no overly emotional scenes, and very little that is highly engaging or exciting, beyond the concept of the film itself.

Truth be told, the concept of Underworld is really its most enjoyable aspect. The mere idea of a "sci-fi vampire/werewolf gang war" makes this film at least passable. Kate Beckinsale perfectly fits--and defines--the character of Selene, adding some much-needed depth and interest to the otherwise bleak story.

If you're a fan of the gothic fantasy genre and can stand mediocrity, I'd recommend this film. It's got some great ideas and a rather complex mythology that may hold your interest.

5/10

Daredevil

2003-02-14T00:00:00.075-06:00

(Note: this review is based on the Director's Cut of the film, not the theatrical version)

As a twelve-year-old boy, Matt Murdock is blinded when toxic waste splashes in his eyes. However, his other senses develop to a superhuman degree, including a sonar-based "radar sense." When his father is murdered by criminals, Matt spends the rest of his life training to be a skilled martial artist and acrobat, eventually becoming the devil-themed crimefighting vigilante known as Daredevil, "the man without fear." Matt has also become an attorney, using his heightened senses as a lie detector.
Matt meets Elektra Natchios (who is both the daughter of a billionaire and trained in ninja-style martial arts), and the two begin dating. When Elektra's father comes into trouble with Wilson Fisk, the "Kingpin" of crime in New York, all manner of tragedy ensues, ending up in a three-way battle between Daredevil, Elektra, and "Bullseye," the deadly assassin who never misses.

This movie's plot, for the most part, is basic and not very well-developed. Most of the characters suffer from the same lack of development, and it really hurts the movie overall. Aside from Matt and Elektra, no one else in the film really has much to do other than "their jobs." Even though the Kingpin and Bullseye are excellently acted and highly entertaining to watch, they don't "develop;" they simply stay the same and play straight-up bad guys. This isn't necessarily a problem in itself, though it does place the focus of the film squarely on the leather-clad hero couple. That wouldn't be a bad thing, if not for the fact that they don't quite shine in the limelight.

The romantic story between Matt and Elektra isn't quite given the time it needs. Their relationship jumps from curious flirtation to deep affection too fast for the audience to emotionally follow along. In the beginning of the film, their story actually feels like a bizarre type of celebrity worship, as though the audience is supposed to fawn over the sheer spectacle of seeing Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck on-screen in a flirtatious action scene together.

Elektra is never given a real reason for learning such deadly martial arts, other than merely for self-defense (which doesn't make sense, considering that she's clearly trained with the skills of an assassin).

Fortunately, Matt is very well-developed in this movie. He may be slightly miscast with Ben Affleck, but not to a terrible degree. We get the most time with him, we understand what makes him tick, and we get why he's attracted to Elektra (and why he comes to care deeply for her).

Unfortunately, there's a certain level of silliness that permeates much of the film. Too many stunts involve entirely unbelievable wirework or extremely stiff fight choreography. Even worse, there are dozens of shots with obviously CGI versions of the characters doing ridiculous acrobatic stunts. No one in the film has actual superhuman strength, so why can characters sometimes leap 20-30 feet at a time? It all only serves to bring the film down.

The last twenty minutes of the movie, however, are excellent. The entire narrative switches from a slightly cheesy superhero crime story to a dark, tragic drama filled with powerful gothic imagery. It's these final moments that manage to elevate Daredevil to a seriously deep and enjoyable level.

Were the entire film like the last section, it would flat-out be a great dramatic superhero movie. As it is, it's just decent fun. Not worth raving over, but certainly worth watching.

6/10

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

2002-11-15T00:00:00.146-06:00

The Chamber of Secrets takes what was in The Sorcerer's Stone and makes it a bit deeper, darker, and ultimately better.

The story here flows much, much better than last time. Whereas The Sorcerer's Stone was jumpy and jumbled as it flowed from start to finish, this movie feels more appropriately suited for film, and is much easier to sink into.

While The Sorcerer's Stone had some very dark moments, it retained a somewhat lighthearted tone that didn't always match the action. The Chamber of Secrets, however, manages to blend its tone and subject matter much better. While death was often mentioned in the previous film, here we actually see a bit of bloody on-screen violence.

The visual effects in this film are much better than in the last, but are still far from perfect. The Quidditch match is less embarassing to watch, but it's not great either. The spiders go back and forth from looking obviously fake to rather impressively realistic. The Basilisk itself looks near-perfect, but the difference between the CG model and the real-life animatronic model is very obvious. I'm actually not sure which model is inferior; it could be that the CG model doesn't correctly reflect light, or it could be that the fake skin on the animatronic model isn't as realistic as it should be. Either way, both models look amazing on their own; they're just distractingly different.

The set design is amazing. The Chamber of Secrets itself looks completely real; it simultaneously scares the audience and piques their curiosity.

The acting in this film has also improved over the last one. The child actors are less awkward, and it helps a bit. Jason Isaacs' portrayal of Lucius Malfoy is masterful; he's the very model of a great villain.

John Williams' musical score is catchy to be sure, but it also feels extremely similar to his other works. The Quidditch match's score sounds almost identical to the generic action music heard in the Star Wars prequels, and many of the themes that are meant to evoke "the majesty and wonder" of Harry's magical world sound very much like themes from Jurassic Park and E.T. While there's nothing wrong with The Chamber of Secrets's musical score when examined on its own, it sounds so similar to other soundtracks that it's distracting for a fantasy-genre soundtrack geek like myself.

This chapter in the Harry Potter series initially seems to be a self-contained adventure, where nothing is lost or gained, and everything merely returns to the status quo at the end. A singular evil rose, and Harry defeated it. Were someone to judge the entire series based on the first two books/films, they might assume that it was nothing more than a series of magical mystery stories for children, rather than what it truly is: a deeply-woven mythology filled with realistically developing characters and wonderful storytelling.

However, future Potter books/films refer back to The Chamber of Secrets, revealing how the specific events here are, in fact, of immense importance. Repeat viewings, in light of the sequels, are much more entertaining.

Honestly, there's not much to say about this film that wasn't already said about the first. The acting is better, the special effects are better, and the story gets a tad darker. Certain elements work extremely well in film form, notably the Basilisk battle and certain lines of well-said dialogue. These little bits of fun elevate the film above its predecessor, and set the bar just a bit higher for the series as a whole.

7/10

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

2001-11-14T00:00:00.021-06:00

This film is the very definition of a straight book-to-screen translation, for better or for worse.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone follows the original children’s novel very closely, perhaps to a fault. The film covers nearly every single aspect of the book, leaving very little out. Unfortunately, this means that the movie is crammed full at two and a half hours, but still feels as though it's rushing in order to cover everything. The dramatic pace of the movie is a bit off because of this, sometimes making the film feel a little bit like a childrens' roller coaster rather than a well-rounded story.

However, the casting here is completely flawless. Good child actors are seemingly non-existent, yet the lead three characters are played perfectly by Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint.

The visual effects go back and forth between astounding and disgusting. All of the “solid” objects look amazing. Hogwarts castle looks completely real, as do all of the other environments. The makeup on the goblins is particularly good; they look like evil, pale-faced Yodas. The attention to detail in the film's visuals overall is practically unmatched. When it comes to the CGI, however, it's an entirely different matter. Almost every time a CG monster or human is shown, it looks obviously fake and cartoonish. Because CG creatures are the focus of many important scenes in the film, this can be extremely distracting.
On the other hand, the whimsical and kid-friendly tone of the movie counters this somewhat. After all, when you have eleven-year-old wizards using tiny wands to battle a slimy mountain troll, realism takes a slight dive. It would have been nice to have real-looking CG effects, but the movie isn't ruined because of the bad ones.

The music is almost astoundingly good. John Williams has apparently not yet lost his touch, managing to craft musical themes that reflect the mystery, wonder, and excitement of Harry’s strange magical world.

An odd thing about the film is its constantly contrasting tone and subject matter. While the film has the whimsical quality of a five-year-old’s brain, the events in the story are far more mature. Voldemort is said to have murdered Harry’s parents, and drinks a slain unicorn’s blood on-screen. Later, Harry purposely uses powerful magic to defend himself, burning his attacker down to ashes. As if that wasn’t enough, Ron occasionally throws out a “damn” or “hell.” While it’s nice to see the film not dodge the book’s more mature content, it does make one occasionally wonder who the target audience is.

The most important part of this film, however, is the manner in which it uses the character of Harry to bring us into this new magical world. He, like Luke Skywalker before him, is the young, ordinary hero who is transported from his grounded reality into a fantastical adventure. There's a sense of wish fulfillment in The Sorcerer's Stone: that dream of taking the Hogwarts Express and being swept way to a land of wonder and excitement.

All in all, this film has a slightly jumpy narrative structure and sometimes-shoddy visual effects, but everything else is of the highest quality. The entire experience is slightly shallow, but it works well enough as an audiovisual spectacle that it's absolutely worth watching. While The Sorcerer’s Stone definitely works better as a book, it functions just fine as a film.

6/10

X-Men

2000-07-14T00:00:00.252-05:00

X-Men, especially for its time, is unique. No other superhero film had truly attempted this level of realism before. Some might point to 1998's Blade in that regard, but Blade had the advantage of being a horror fantasy film as well. X-Men, on the other hand, presented an entirely new way of viewing the world of super-powered humans.

The basic plot of the X-Men universe is this:
Around the world, every one person out of a hundred thousand might possess a specific "x-gene;" a genetic marker that causes a random mutation. This mutation manifests itself through the development of some bizarre ability, usually similar to something like a comic book superpower. Often times, these powers can be dangerous, and many non-mutant humans are now afraid of the danger that mutants pose to mankind. Professor Charles Xavier—a mutant himself—has created a school for mutants, where they can stay safely hidden from mankind and learn to control their abilities. He has also created a small team of mutants who act as a force to preserve the peace between mutant- and human-kind, both by fighting against humans who act violently against mutants, and against mutants who use their powers for evil.

A type of bizarre realism permeates the film. At times, there are bits of science fiction horror sprinkled throughout, adding to the overall feel of slightly twisted reality. The tone of X-Men is rather dark and serious. One interesting note is that the conflict of the entire film rests on the politics of the mutant/human conflict. Though the X-Men are a secret superhuman fighting force, they are also indirect ambassadors for mutantkind, serving as mediating peacekeepers.

The two primary villains of the film, Senator Robert Kelley and Erik Lensherr (also called Magneto), are both completely understandable and not entirely wrong in their positions. Kelley believes that mutants are a threat to the public because of their powers, which is not incorrect; Magneto—a former ally of Charles Xavier—believes that humanity, through their fear, is a violent threat to mutantkind, which is also partially correct.

Xavier and Magneto (played excellently by Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen) have a very powerful "antagonistic friendship" dynamic. The two characters genuinely want the same thing—mutant prosperity—but Magneto does not believe that peace is an option in this quest. His "Brotherhood of Mutants" acts as the super-villain menace that the X-Men must battle.

The character of Logan/Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman, owns this film. He feels genuinely tough, believably rough-edged, yet very human. His cynical and disbelieving reactions to the somewhat outlandish circumstances surrounding the X-Men and their bizarre world allow for a certain degree of plausibility in what would otherwise seem like a silly film.

The other hero characters, Cyclops, Storm, and Jean Grey, don't get enough screen time to be fully-developed, yet are good for the little while they're there. Cyclops and Jean, in particular, feel like full characters that we only get small glimpses of.

The villains within the Brotherhood of Mutants, those being Magneto, Mystique, Toad and Sabretooth, are a mixed bag. Magneto is a wonderfully understandable villain. The shape-shifting femme fatale Mystique's sex appeal is almost laughably overdone, though her fight scene with Wolverine is extremely well-choreographed. She gets the most character development of Magneto's lackeys—indeed, she is probably the only one of them that does anything more than act like a super-powered goon. The remaining two, Sabretooth and Toad, are mostly useless, though Sabretooth's end fight scene with Wolverine is great.

The production values, overall, are merely decent. The directing, acting, and cinematography, especially in the film's first half, are excellent. The special effects are a little bit dodgy, however, especially the CGI effects. The stuntwork is also a bit cheap-looking, somewhat ruining the big action scene at the end. It doesn't diminish the film too badly, but it definitely lowers the enjoyment level. The musical score is decent, if not amazing. It does its job, and the theme for Logan and Rogue is certainly wrought with a certain level of deep emotion that makes the ending scenes work very well.

It's truly remarkable how reverent to the source material this film is. For a fan of the X-Men books, watching this movie feels somewhat like stepping into a strange place where dreams become real. On the other hand, there are several major moments in the film—notably involving the silly-looking CGI and cheap stuntwork—that begin to take it into a more cartoonish and less compelling area.

In the end, X-Men is a very well-done first attempt with the X-Men franchise, and sets a certain standard of grounded reality for superhero films to follow. It's not particularly epic or jaw-dropping, but it simply works.

6/10

Aladdin

1992-11-11T19:00:00.101-06:00

Most of the Disney Renaissance films hold up surprisingly well in retrospect. Aladdin is not one of them. Aladdin is by no means a bad film; it's very good. Certain shortcomings, however, keep it from achieving "masterpiece" status.

Aladdin continues Beauty and the Beast's tradition of diving deep into the culture of the tale. The Islamic culture of the Middle-East is represented here, complete with multiple mentions of "Allah" and direct references to the oft-harsh laws of the Middle-East. It doesn't feel quite natural, though, especially since the heroes all speak in an American accent and use American mannerisms, while most of the other characters (including the "evil" ones) have Arab accents and mannerisms. While Disney's intentions were undoubtedly honest and good, they ended up getting themselves into trouble.

One highly noticeable change from the previous film is that the fictional world represented by Aladdin is slightly anachronistic. Characters make many references to modern pop culture, allowing for numerous jokes at the expense of the film's artistic integrity.

Indeed, Aladdin seems to be focused on being a "thrillride" more than anything else. Adventure--and the pursuit thereof--seems to be at the heart of the film's message. While this is certainly a universal human theme, it may not necessarily be a good one. Whereas The Little Mermaid centered on the pursuit of dreams, and Beauty and the Beast depicted "the most beautiful love story ever told," Aladdin seems to focus on the alleviation of boredom. As with nearly all Disney films of this type, there are strong themes of romance and dream-chasing, but the "adventure" theme is at Aladdin's forefront. This, unfortunately, makes the entire film seem somewhat shallow.

The animation is slightly more simplified here than in previous films. While Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid had a more detailed approach, Aladdin has a much more fluid style. Additionally, the brief CG elements that were seen in past films have now been applied much more heavily. While it allows for more movement-based "camera angles," it doesn't look all that great. Certain elements look just fine--like the tiger-head of the Cave of Wonders--but others look obvious and out-of-place.

It seems that while Disney was attempting to make their previous two films into high art, their approach for Aladdin was to have a compelling joyride. That doesn't mean that Aladdin isn't good, or that it doesn't fit in with the pantheon of Disney animated films; it just means that it's not amazing.

Beauty and the Beast

1991-11-22T19:00:00.002-06:00

Beauty and the Beast was a film that I saw only a few times as a child. I enjoyed it to an extent, but was too young to appreciate the surprisingly nuanced tale.

A few months ago, I watched the final scene from B&B as a school assignment to compare the Disney film with earlier versions of the story. I was completely shocked at just how much powerful emotion was contained within the tale that I thought I knew so well. As I and the rest of my Literature classmates examined the details of the different versions of B&B, one fact became clear: this was perhaps the only example of a Disney film that far surpassed the original version of the tale, as well as nearly every other story of its kind.

Disney's Beauty and the Beast has many levels of irony and conflict that do not appear in the original story. While the characters in Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's well-known "original" version of the tale are straightforward and mostly unwavering, this film's characters are deeper and go through realistic development. Unlike The Little Mermaid, in which the primary relationship was based on a simple crush (although seemingly fated), Beauty and the Beast strives to create a real relationship that grows from mutual resentment to selfless love. There is perhaps no better example in the vast Disney Classics library of a deep, growing relationship. That's quite an impressive feat, considering that nearly all of those films are reliant upon a love story.

From a technical perspective, this film is amazing. This is the first Disney animated film to be produced entirely using CAPS, and it shows. Unlike The Little Mermaid, which was filled with film grain and other visual problems, Beauty and the Beast is visually clean and sharp, standing up even to today's visual standards. The computer-generated effects that are used in the film blend perfectly with the hand-drawn animation style, never diverting the audience's attention.

The music in B&B is among Disney's finest. Every song in the film is both enjoyable and important, revealing and reinforcing important character traits. There are even specific musical cues that, when taken in context with each other across the plot of the film, reveal hidden details of the characters' inner thoughts.

Every single aspect of Beauty and the Beast is of the highest quality. Visually, it is amazing. Musically, it is astounding. In its entirety, it is animated mastery.
Anyone and everyone should see this film at some point in their life.

The Rocketeer

1991-06-21T00:00:00.087-05:00

The Rocketeer is adapted from the comic book of the same name, which was heavily inspired by the science fiction adventure stories of the 1930s and 40s.

The plot is simple: In 1938, an experimental rocket jet pack accidentally falls into the hands of a young stunt pilot named Cliff. With the aid of the rocket pack, Cliff publicly saves someone's life, quickly gaining fame as the anonymous "Rocketeer." Eventually, Cliff's loved ones are threatened by Nazi agents who want the rocket's technology, and Cliff must find a way to save the ones he loves while keeping the rocket out of the hands of evil.

The film's special effects are perhaps slightly crude by today's standards, but still work to a great degree. They're quite notable in that they replicate much of the style of early television sci-fi adventure serials, with jet flames that crackle and pop.

The film's art style is also notable in that it replicates much of the art deco style of the original comic book without feeling completely unrealistic or outlandish. The Rocketeer's helmet is the most obviously surreal visual element of the film, but it still works within the narrative.

Above any and all visual elements, however, The Rocketeer's real strength is in its storytelling style. The characters and plot echo the most classic of adventure films, and keep an uplifting vibe that simply feels good.

Perhaps the film's biggest flaw, however, is the fact that, while the film is certainly enjoyable, it is not amazing. There is no truly "thrilling" quality to it, only an "adequately exciting" quality.

In the end, however, this is one of rare few films of its type, and has a level of originality despite its obvious derivative concept.

7/10

The Little Mermaid

1989-11-17T19:00:00.002-06:00

The Little Mermaid is, essentially, an experiment.
With its release in 1989, it kickstarted the "Disney Renaissance," being the first in a series of animated films with extremely high production values. Music, animation, and writing are all at their highest in these films, but to separate those three qualities would be a mistake, as they're expertly blended into a single experience that has no equal.

The Little Mermaid, being the first in this new line of films, is not necessarily up to the same animation standards as the Disney films that would immediately follow. A new animation coloring technology known as CAPS (Computer Animation Production System) was experimentally used on a few scenes of the film, but the majority of TLM was completed with traditional hand-drawn coloring, causing the picture to seem somewhat grainy in comparison to the later films that were completed entirely using CAPS. While this cannot be held against TLM, it still would have been nice to have the entire film in CAPS, as even the most recent DVD release does not make the picture any clearer.

However, the sheer level of detail in the hand-drawn animation is astounding. It was estimated that over a million bubbles were drawn for the film, without exaggeration. Every character moves through the water realistically, which is a very impressive feat. It's quite obvious that the animators studied the movement of human bodies underwater (especially hair) for this film, and their effort should be applauded.

The music of the film is quite literally astounding. The score echoes the underwater theme very well, and sounds just different enough to differentiate it from other European-based fantasy stories.
The actual songs themselves generally annoy me on many levels, though the main theme, "Part of Your World" is refreshingly less embarrassing, if perhaps still too quirky and girly for my taste. However, I can still acknowledge the songs' high quality, even if I personally don't enjoy them much.

The story is simple, yet contains many odd elements that are actually quite jarring. First of all, perhaps more from a visual perspective rather than story, is the fact that Ariel is a sixteen-year-old girl wearing very little clothing throughout most of the film, and is quite literally prancing about naked in one scene. While this is logical considering the plot, it's also quite unsettling considering the character's age. Were she either a bit younger or a bit older, she could have been too innocent or too mature for it to matter, but that in-between stage is highly problematic. While I'm completely willing to overlook the lack of clothing for plot's sake, I'm not entirely sure that the film's "camera angles" were done in completely good taste. Many have made the argument that The Little Mermaid is oversensualized, and, sadly, I'm not entirely sure I disagree with them.
Second of all, the story involves a teenager that essentially is rewarded for being rebellious. The message of the film is that of "following one's dreams," but in this case the protagonist chases her dreams by defying her father's wishes and engaging in witchcraft. While the negative consequences of her actions become apparent toward the end of the story, it seems rather odd.

The characters aren't extremely deep, but not completely shallow either.
Ariel herself is seemingly very shallow at first, falling literally for the first young male she sees. Furthermore, she seemingly devotes her entire life to him, rejecting everything she has for a man she doesn't even know. Luckily, he turned out to be a good guy.
Prince Eric seems to be a bit more mature than Ariel. Rather than simply falling for the first girl he sees, he very specifically waits for the moment when he meets the right one. It seems as though he has something specific that he's seeking after, rather than following a simple whim. His actions in the final battle of the film are actually quite remarkable. He is quite determined and dedicated, fighting with all his ability to protect his beloved. While it does seem odd that he would be in love with her so quickly, it does make sense to an extent, since he had essentially dreamed of her for his entire life, and was therefore in love with her before he actually met her.

As an aside note, Eric's maneuver with the sunken ship and the whirlpool is quite possibly the best action move I've ever seen in an animated film. I vividly remember being four years old and thinking how ironic it was that Ursula had become the ultimate supernatural power of the sea, yet, through misuse of that power, allowed Eric to steer the sunken ship and use sheer physical force to overcome all the magical power in the oceans. Effectively, her dark actions came full circle in the whirlpool, bringing about her own death.
Of course, I was only four, and didn't even know what the word "ironic" meant. I guess it should have been obvious at that point that I'd be a literary analyst and writer.

All in all, The Little Mermaid is not without its flaws, but is ultimately a great spectacle that shouldn't go unnoticed.

Rather than give TLM a star-rating here, I'll wait until the rest of the Disney reviews are done, and compare them all together in a separate post.