LandF

Last year, Pixar gave us Cars 2. Critics and audience members alike were appalled at the product. It was no where near the masterpieces that Pixar had brought us previously. But while it wasn't perfect, I still enjoyed Cars 2. But I definitely didn't want Pixar to keep making movies like Cars 2. I wanted more masterpieces. So Brave comes along. The film that everyone is hoping will save the day and remind us all why we love Pixar. Unfortunately, many critics aren't all that impressed with Brave, and while MOST of the critics liked it, the reception has been a little disappointing, especially when you consider how well the rest of the Pixar films have done. Brave is being considered one of the worst Pixar films. But I think this is bizarre. I'm not quite sure why this is being met with such lukewarm reception. Brave is nothing short of a masterpiece. In fact, it's one of Pixar's BETTER films, in my opinion. Brave (originally titled The Bear and the Bow) is about a princess named Merida who wants to be an archer. Unfortunately for her, Merida's mother, Elinor, wants Merida to be a bit more ladylike. Merida puts up with her mother, but when she's being forced to marry before she's even ready. There's an argument between the Merida and Elinor, a witch, and next thing you know Elinor is a bear. So Merida must change her mother back to a human and at the same time, regain her bond with her mother. Brave has all the ingredients that every good movie needs. For one, the characters are very memorable. I doubt any of them will replace anyone's favorite Pixar character, but they're funny and well developed. Also, Brave is very funny. It's not as humorous as Up or the Toy Story films, but there's enough gags to entertain adults and kids. Admittedly, some of the humor feels a bit more tilted towards the Dreamworks canon, but I still found myself laughing often. The last main ingredient; heart. And Brave has heart to spare. Pixar has almost always managed to make me cry, I don't mind saying. But then came Cars 2. Sure it made me laugh, and the animation impressed, but I never felt any real emotional connection with anything going onscreen. But Brave reminded me why I look forward to Pixar films every year. I did cry at times, and there were times when I held back tears. Brave is one of the most moving pictures I've ever seen. Seeing Merida and Elinor's relationship grow as the film progresses, and the sacrifices they make for each other is particularly moving. Rarely do I feel so engaged with the characters. Some critics were complaining about the uneven tones. From soft mother-daughter scenes, to boy-ish humor. I actually LIKED the shifts in tone. There were times when things got a little tragic and humor really helped to lighten the mood. Patrick Doyle composed the score for Brave. This is his first time scoring a Pixar film, and having heard very little of Doyle's scores, I wasn't sure how I'd like his music. Well, Doyle has proved himself a hundred times over. I was extremely impressed with the score, and hope to see Doyle compose more Pixar films in the future. The voice acting is, as usual for a Pixar film, superb. The voices are a little more recognizable this time around, but in the end, I wouldn't have changed anything. Kelly MacDonald does a more than respectable job as Merida, while Emma Thompson does excellently as mother (though unfortunately, she spends most of the movie as a bear). And Billy Connoly does a hilarious job as Fergus, Merida's rambunctious father. And naturally, the animation is gorgeous. Easily outdoing any of Pixar's previous films. Trees, water, mist, hair, all of the above. Pixar does an eleven-out-of-ten job on their animation, making Brave the best looking animated film of the year thus far. Brave is being unfairly labeled as one of Pixar's weaker films, and a merely decent film. Brave is, in fact, a masterpiece and hopefully the so-so reviews and the female protagonist won't stop male audience members from seeing it. Cars 2 was decent, but left me nervous as to Pixar's future. Brave has put all those fears to rest. Pixar is back baby: Hopefully forever. Note: Brave was preceded by a short film entitled La Luna. This was both imaginative and magical. Don't come late or you'll miss it, and you will not want to miss this.

Treasure Planet has not been greeted with negative reception, by any means. But compared to other Disney films, the response has been lukewarm at best, and Treasure Planet was a major box office flop. But here's the catch: It's really good. Like, really, really good. Treasure Planet is inspired by the Robert Louis Stevenson's classic, Treasure Island. Having not read the book myself, I cannot judge how closely the movie follows the book (my guess is not much due to the fact that this is an outer space adventure), but it provides a wonderfully entertaining yarn anyway. Jim is something of a rebel, but it's mostly his Dad's fault for leaving him and his mother at such a young age. Jim is constantly in trouble with the law, and his mother doesn't know what to do with her nearly-adult son. But when Jim gets a map from a deranged sea captain, Jim hopes to redeem himself and bring back the gold of Treasure Planet. A canine friend named Doppler tag along, as the two sail on a ship with a questionable crew, a cyborg cook named Mr. Silver, the captain named Amelia, and a host of others. The characters are instantly memorable. Yes, we have the stereotype "cute" character in the form of a shapeshifting alien named Morph. Yes, we have the stereotype villain in the form of a sneaky spider named Scroop. And yes, we have the stereotype "humor" character in the form of a robot named B.E.N. (who I didn't find all that funny at all). But there's a slew of original characters elsewhere. The protagonist, for example, Jim is a slightly different glove than the kind Disney usually likes to wear. Far from perfect with a messed up moral compass, Jim is rebellious, and doesn't like to take orders, but we see him change throughout the movie into a much more respectable chap. Likewise, Mr. Silver, who is the film's primary villain, never really knows if he wants to help Jim, or deploy his villainous plot to take the booty of Treasure Planet for himself. He's an interesting villain, far more interesting than almost any other villain that Disney has brought us so far. The visuals are incredible. Stunning. Really some of Disney's best. The same technology used in Disney's, also gorgeous, Tarzan film has been employed here with even better results. CGI backgrounds and often props mix with traditionally animated characters creating a visually superb film. And of course, Treasure Planet is hilarious. While B.E.N. is more than a tad annoying, he has some redeeming lines, and there are lots of other humorous characters as well. Captain Amelia gets a lot of great lines, and Doctor Doppler is equally funny. The score was unexpectedly wonderful. This is really some of Disney's best work in the music department. Composed by James Newton Howard (a composer I've had mixed feelings about), the score balances emotion and playfulness skillfully, applying enough strong, triumphant tunes as well for some of the more grand scenes. Unfortunately for Treasure Planet, there is a montage that occurs just before the halfway point, that was just screaming for the score to kick in and deliver the musical masterpiece to get it nominated for Best Original Score. Alas, Treasure Planet has decided to insert an incredibly irritating lyrical song instead. The song has an extremely loud and annoying sounding drum section, and an ill-fitting electric guitar. What could've been the centerpiece of the film, turns out to be the worst part, and this really is a shame. Treasure Planet shocked me by delivering one of Disney's best films so far. There's an abundance of memorable characters that you really care about, beautiful animation, and it's naturally hilarious. And while these are all important traits for a film, Treasure Planet also has something even more important: A heart. Treasure Planet doesn't settle for artificial sentimental stuff that so many other films have adopted and use only to attract a broader audience. Treasure Planet brings us a genuinely emotional film that I will not soon forget.

Alice In Wonderland really is a mixed bag. I know that's hardly a way to begin a review, but when you've got a bag as mixed as this, it's hard to know quite where to start. I never can tell what Alice In Wonderland is trying to be, whether a drama, an action movie, a comedy, but it appears to be juggling all three at once, which provides mixed results, as I mentioned previously. Instead of being a mere adaption of the Alice In Wonderland book, Tim Burton instead creates a story that occurs 13 years after. Alice is set to marry a lord who she does not want to marry at all. Demands from her mother and parents of Alice's predetermined husband further confuse and frustrate Alice. So to escape it all, she follows a familiar rabbit into a rabbit hole, and we all know what will happen from there. Or do we? Since this is, in fact, 13 years after the original Wonderland incident, things have changed. Wonderland (or Underland, as we learn it is called) has become a much darker, and dangerous place. Alice is destined to slay a beast called the Jabberwocky, but she doubts herself, and the Red Queen wants her killed. It's all a little bit more complicated than it needs to be. But Underland is all about complications. I will start by pointing out Alice In Wonderland's biggest strength: The visuals. Between the magnificent makeup, the ridiculous costumes, the outrageous hair, and stunning special effects (and they are stunning sometimes), Alice In Wonderland is one of the most visually captivating films ever made. But if only everything else was as wonderful and undeniably incredible as the visual effects. The characters, while mostly amusing, feel a little bit...predictable. Tim Burton usually likes to recreate the characters, but instead, we get virtually the same characters from the book (and animated Disney movie), with little exception. True, Burton tries to flesh them out a bit more and add additional back story, but it does little to separate the characters in this adaption from the animated version. The acting, like the film, is a huge mixed bag. That's not to say that there are BAD actors. All the acting is very good, it's just expected. Predictable, like the characters. Most everyone is played by the book, with no special spin on almost any of them. Johnny Depp disappoints in his role as the Mad Hatter. He needs to be over the top and ridiculous. Instead, he's just rather ordinary. What happened to the wacky, bizzareness that be brought us in Charlie In The Chocolate Factory? But this isn't always the case with the acting. Helena Bonham Carter (as the Red Queen) is as outrageous and ridiculous as she needs to be, and more. Her acting is by far the most impressive in the film. Carter ends up doing the performance Depp should've done, but doesn't. One performance I didn't expect to like was Anne Hathaway's as The White Queen. "She's much too recognizable." I thought. And I was right. But she does perfectly. She's extremely dramatic and flowy, and she does a marvelous job. Without doing any research on the score beforehand, I knew that it was composed by Danny Elfman. After looking it up after the film, I was proven correct. Here's how I knew: It sounds like all his other scores. Yes, Elfman's a great composer, but all his scores sound alike, each borrowing elements from his last score. If Elfman can't get his act together, Burton may need to look for a new composer. My last opinion about Alice In Wonderland may be the most important: It makes sense. Well, mostly anyway. It's not nearly as whimsical and bizzare as it should be. It's actually, relatively straight forward. Alice In Wonderland just isn't weird enough. It needs to be more odd. More outrageous. The animated version did a much better job at this. I wanted to like this film. I wanted to love it. But Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland just isn't the film it should be. But it's not half-bad. If you haven't already seen Alice In Wonderland, it's not a bad diversion; it's just not a very good one.

Pooh has proved itself to be as dependable as Pixar. I've never been disappointed thus far with a Winnie the Pooh film, and they've all provided strong, whimsical, and entertaining adventures. And then came Pooh's Heffalump Movie. Pooh's Heffalump Movie stars Roo, who decides to hunt and capture a heffalump that's on the loose. Roo does find and capture the heffalump (named Lumpy), but it's not as scary as Pooh and friends think, and Roo becomes fast friends with the creature. Pooh's Heffalump Movie has unfortunately decided to pander more to younger kids this time around. Most of the gags will only appeal to toddlers, and the whimsy that has surrounded previous Pooh films is almost completely gone. Pooh and the gang is back, more or less as you remember them, though with a few exceptions. Owl is completely omitted, and while we see Christopher Robin briefly in the credits, we never hear him speak. I was originally skeptical about the newest addition to the cast, the heffalump named Lumpy. But I didn't mind him. I don't think he brings anything new to the cast, and I'm certainly not sad that he hasn't returned to most of the future outings, but he wasn't annoying (mostly), and he was a little cute. There are a couple songs, which are dull and instantly forgettable. In addition, there are occasionally songs playing in the background, which didn't hurt the film at all, but it did little to improve it. There's not much to say about the score; it's mostly mediocre. The animation is certainly a cut above that of Pooh's Grand Adventure, but there's nothing jaw-dropping to see. I scarcely remember laughing at all during the movie. I'm sure this is superb for younger children, but I was usually bored. If you have kids, they'll probably love this. But if you came expecting the heart, fun, and whimsy of previous Pooh films, you'll be sorely disappointed as I was.

At first glance, Lilo and Stitch seems a lot like E.T. An alien is found and cared for by a small child from a broken home, while the alien learns to adjust to the world. But rather than dismiss Lilo and Stitch as a rip off of the famed film, I suggest seeing the film for yourself (if you haven't already). It's worth seeing. There are several differences in the story that are enough to make Lilo and Stitch feel like it's own. For one, the location is in Hawaii, which adds a nice atmosphere to Lilo and Stitch. The situation with the family is even more dire; Lilo, a little girl, may be taken away from her older sister who is parenting her due to death of their father. Stitch, the furry and vicious beast from outer space has escaped execution by crash-landing on Earth. But after being hit by a semi-truck, Stitch is put into a dog pound (though no one's sure quite what he is), and is eventually adopted by Lilo, much to her sister's dismay. The animation is some of the best I've seen in a 2D animated film. This is most evident in the water scenes, and during a spaceship chase/fight towards the end. A rainbow of colors decorate the animation giving the film a vibrant and upbeat feel, even during some of the more emotionally intense scenes. Lilo and Stitch manages to be rather funny, though not as much as other Disney efforts. The best lines come from the disgustingly underused alien, Pleakley. Other characters get less amusing jokes (with Stitch carrying most of the extra bulk). Also, Lilo and Stitch incorporates many lyrical songs in the background (many of them being Elvis oriented). Usually, lyrical songs in the background can be extremely irritating or distracting, but it works for the film's advantage here. Unfortunately, the title characters can be extremely un-likeable at times, which makes it hard to root for them. Also, as fun as Lilo and Stitch can be, it's also a bit exhausting. Lilo and Stitch is certainly not at the top of my favorite Disney films, but it's funny enough, beautifully animated, and unique, if a little odd.

I've never quite enjoyed Aardman's work as much as critics. At least, not their full-length films. That's not to say I haven't liked them; I've liked them, but I certainly haven't loved them. Pirates: Band Of Misfits is different, though. This movie, I did love. None of the primary pirates are given names (their descriptions in the credits are "The Pirate With The Scarf," "The Pirate With Gout," etc., which makes this plot description a little difficult to write. The protagonist, Pirate Captain (no really, that's his name) is determined to win the pirate of the year contest. The problem; he's not a very good pirate. And with his competition being so strong, it appears the odds are against him. At least, that's what he thinks. It turns out, his trusty, rotund parrot is a rare dodo bird, thought to be extinct. There may be some booty in this after all. That is, if Charles Darwin of The Queen doesn't snatch it first. The Pirates Band Of Misfits is a fun, and often hilarious film. There are so many sight gags that a second or even third viewing may be necessary to catch them all. This is also, Aardman's most visually stunning work. It's miles ahead of any of their previous films, and there are lots of complex crowd scenes that are truly amazing. In previous films, Aardman purposefully left revealing finger-prints on the characters. Those who found this distracting will be pleased to know that Aardman has avoided doing this here. Not all characters get as much screen time as they should, but they're an amusing bunch, with (for the most part) well-defined personalities. As I mentioned earlier, there are lots of sight gags, but dialogue-oriented lines are here too. They're the witty and chuckle-inducing lines that we have come to expect from Aardman, and in much more generous amounts than in previous films. Unfortunately, Pirates: Band Of Misfits added lots of lyrical songs (playing in the background) that are usually annoying. I would've much preferred that the score continued to play during some of these scenes, because they're really are too many songs in the background. And speaking of the score, it was a little disappointing. Pirates are good music material, but the score, for the most part, is very mediocre. Then again, Aardman isn't known for their instrumentals. Flaws aside, The Pirates: Band Of Misfits is funny and witty, with wonderful animation and a cast of amusing characters. This is certainly Aardman's best film, thus far. Hopefully, it will only get better from here.

What a mess! Push is easily one of the worst action films I've ever seen! Between flat and unlikable characters to dull action, Push gets just about everything wrong. It's campy, it's silly, and painfully un-watchable. Push is much more confusing than it needs to be. In the end, it's just about a group of people trying to get a case before the "bad guys" get it. Put less simply, it's about people with a range of psychic abilities who are in a race against The Division (a powerful government that "rules" these superior beings) to find a case that contains a "billion dollar secret." The plot makes much less sense on film. In specific, the plot follows a man named Nick (Chris Evans), who is just out of his teen years, and still doesn't really have a good grip on his ability (levitation). He meets a girl named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) who convinces him (sort of) to join her on a quest to find the case. Cassie herself is a "watcher," someone who can see into the future. She draws what she sees, and based on what she sees, Cassie and Nick may not survive this adventure. As I mentioned previously, the plot is much more complicated on film. None of the abilities in Push are very cool, and none are very original. We get people who can levitate, people who can see into the future, people who can control your mind, etc. These are all things we've seen before. Been there, done that. The one new ability that Push has made is....screaming. Yes, believe it or not, Push's only innovative ability is the ability to scream. Granted, it's a scream that can destroy structures, people, etc., but in the end, it's just some creepy Asian guy screaming like a maniac. It's stupid and campy. And as if that wasn't bad enough, there are THREE villains with this ability. Push also doesn't know what kind of a movie it wants to be. Does it want to be a light, comedic action flick? A hard, heavy, end of the world film? Maybe an intelligent heist film? Push, unsuccessfully, attempts to do all three. As if I have to say it; this really doesn't work. The acting, though not awful, never gets much better than mediocre. And early on, the acting even seems a little clunky. As if Push isn't already bad off, it also suffers from an overwhelming number of obvious plot holes. And there is little characters development, if any. Most of the characters don't even have a definitive personality. The action scenes are usually brief, with no actual fights occurring. Just someone getting beat up, with a victor we can already predict. There are few exceptions. During the end, we get a long, action filled climax, but it's more tedious than exciting. And beware, the ending is a major cop-out. The one positive thing I can say about Push (aside from it's vaguely unique premise), is it's skilled editing. It shows snippets of future events than goes back to the past. The editing is just very well done, I'll give it that. Push is campy, tedious, cheesy, confusing, and stupid. It tries to be three different films at once, and character development is omitted entirely. Plot holes abound, action scenes are dull. Outside of camp value, Push has few redeeming qualities.

It is no secret that I am a huge fan of Winnie The Pooh. And if it was, it's not any more. So believe me when I say that the latest adaption is one of the very best. The newest installment in the beloved series of Winnie The Pooh films is about, both a search for Eeyore's tale, and a plot to trap a creature that has supposedly captured Christopher Robin. All the charm and fun of the rest of the Winnie The Pooh films are present here. Short songs and nostalgia help as well. The voice cast performs well, though some of the new voices may bother you at first. Jim Cummings plays Pooh and Tigger, and Bud Luckey (who you'll recognize as Chuckles from Toy Story 3, among other Pixar films) has been cast as the ever depressed Eeyore. The other cast members shine as well, once you get used to them that is. The animation is simple and beautiful, but during one musical number, where everything appears to be turning to honey, the animation grows much more detailed. CGI and motion capture are great, but nothing beats the traditional stuff. The music is wonderful as well, and the Winnie The Pooh theme song at the beginning revived many glorious memories. The characters may not be quite as you remembered them, though. Piglet is a bit more chipper. Owl shows a lot of emotion in his eyes. And Rabbit, while still acting superior to the rest, seems to have lost some of his crankiness. Also, Christopher Robin has changed his wardrobe and his eyes are no longer little specks. This, to me, was the change I liked the least, but I didn't mind. Too much. The film is also surprisingly funny. This is easily the most humorous of all the Winnie The Pooh adaptions, and it made me laugh much more than other so called "comedies" out there. My only real complaint about Winnie The Pooh is it's run time: An all too short 63 minutes. I know that kids don't have the longest attention span, but this trip down memory lane felt a little short. Winnie The Pooh is just as wonderful as ever, and I do hope this film is only the beginning of another league of movies from our friends at the Hundred Acre Wood.

Adolf **** committed suicide April 30, 1945. Valkyrie is about a group of men who are plotting to assassinate ****. Due to the information I have just given to you, you now know that by the end of the movie, **** will still be alive. This is a bit of a problem for Valkyrie, but this film does a relatively good job of making you forget about this conclusion. The A-list cast does a more-than-excellent job at acting, though the actual character development is extremely minimal for most characters. Valkyrie does something very smart at the beginning of the movie. We understand that the characters are all speaking German, but they speak English anyway. This eliminates the need for silly German accents, and is much less distracting. There are times when this is contradicted though, such as one scene where there is a woman singing in German, but these are forgivable. Unfortunately, my compliments must end here. Valkyrie is not an action movie. It is not placed under the action genre, and there are almost not action scenes in the movie. Valkyrie is a war movie. Does this seem contradictory to you? I was surprised by the lack of action in Valkyrie, but a lack of action isn't necessarily a bad thing if the movie is entertaining enough. Unfortunately, Valkyrie is mostly just people talking and planning. The reward for waiting through all the talking? One explosion. Really, that's all. For all the planning and talking and such, I expected a very elaborate plan to take place. The plan, though, is really not much more then setting a bomb next to **** during a meeting. So I ask, how did a film with such a simple plot manage to stretch to a unnecessarily long, 2 hours? It seems that more time was spent thinking of one liners, than developing an interesting plot. What was most agonizing though, was all the potential Valkyrie. Imagine if we were given flashbacks to **** childhood. And what if there was some more background about the main character's marriage? More story, a little more action, and some decent character development would've gone a long way for turning this mostly mediocre film into the masterpiece it just missed out on.

It's been years since I've seen Wall-E. I remember enjoying it, just like the rest of the Pixar bunch, so I got it via Netflix to see again. A wise choice. Wall-E is even better than I remember it. Wall-E is an ingenious film that occurs thousands of years in the future. Humans no longer live on the Earth due to pollution, they instead live in a giant spaceship, called the Axim. The Wall-E robots are left at Earth to clean up the mess. All of the Wall-E's, however, have been wiped out over time. Only one remains. But when EVE, a robot from the Axim, comes to Earth to find life, Wall-E's life is flipped upside down. The first half-hour of the film is performed with minimal dialogue, but still mananges to express all kinds of emotion: Laughter, loneliness, perhaps even sadness. I cried multiple times throughout the film. The animation is gorgeous, even for today. And the musical score, composed by Thomas Newman, is excellent. There really isn't any sort of flaw to this film. It's entertaining, it's funny, it has a lot of heart, there's amazing animation, and an impressive musical score. Of course, I haven't even touched base on the best aspect of the film: the characters. Wall-E has, perhaps, some of the most memorable (and hilarious) characters in all Pixar history. From the quirky Wall-E, to the grumpy M-O, to the rotund captain of the Axim, there's an endless abundance of charming cast members. Wall-E is easily one of the greatest films ever made. Period.

I hope you like fart jokes because G-Force has a lot of them. G-Force fails in almost every respect, and will only entertain children. Small children. G-Force is about three guinea pigs who are genetically engineered to talk and be spies. But these rodents are out of the job when they're thrown into a pet shop when the government disapproves of the G-Force team. They meet another guinea pig named Hurley, and together, they escape the pet shop and attempt to save the world from killer kitchen appliances. G-Force offers, quite literally, nothing that's original or anything that I haven't seen before on film. G-Force is always trying to be funny. The gags never stop, but I never laughed a single time. I think I smiled twice, and the second time was a smile of relief when the movie was over! The action scenes were predictably dull. As the movie went on, it became more and more obvious that this film is strictly for toddlers. There are no "wink wink for adults" gags. The musical score rips of countless movies, many lines are laughably cheesy. Lots of contradictions in character personalities. When G-Force doesn't feel rushed, it feels slow and dull. We hear "I've got a feelin'" three times throughout the tedious duration of the film. Pacing is an issue. The acting is mostly wooden. Need I go on? On the plus side, there are some good visuals (the CGI work is actually pretty good), and the voice work is decent, if unspectacular. Many of the good visuals are present during the "fly" scenes where one of the recruits, a fly named mooch, is shown wizzing through desserts, Venus fly traps, etc. If you have kids, G-Force will probably entertain them. But there are lots of other better films out there that will do the same thing. I can't stress this enough: Don't watch G-Force.

Andrew Stanton has directed two amazing movies; Finding Nemo, and Wall-E. These pictures are both masterpieces, and favorites of mine. Now, Andrew Stanton directs his first live-action movie, John Carter. John Carter is based off of an older-novel, that inspired Star Wars, Avatar, and others. We owe a lot to John Carter, but this movie adaption certainly doesn't pay any debt. John Carter is, simply put, a cheesy, melodramatic, overlong, cliched, unfunny, predictable, non-thrilling "adventure." Some aspects of the film seemed promising, but crashed and burned. There was potential here, but in the end, it all burns out. The beginning does a decent job of making us wonder what's going to happen, what did happen, etc. In fact, the beginning was pretty entertaining, albeit predictable. But after John Carter gets to Mars, the whole story drags. However, there's a lot of incredible visuals on Mars, and though that doesn't make up for stale characters and confusing plot, it helps a little. The CGI is incredible. Amazing. Absolutely gorgeous. If John Carter has one strength, it's the visual effects. Also, the score by Michael Giacchino is another winner. Giacchino never disappoints. Unfortunately, the more important aspects of the movie, like the plot and characters, are less polished. The plot (in addition to John Carter) focuses on the princess of Mars, who wants to avoid marrying a villainous man, but feels she must do it to save her people. Sound familiar? Almost any Disney Princess movie has the same or similar plot. Also, the characters have no personality. Aside from John Carter and limited other characters, there is no one with a true personality. And even those who have one are usually generic types. The action scenes are bland and predictable. The CGI and musical score make up for the awfulness, but a movie can't run on looks and sound alone. Also, there was a lot of potentially good space ship scenes that never truly happen. HOWEVER, the last 10 minutes are amazing. There's an incredible twist, and that was easily my favorite part. Andrew Stanton is a force to be reckoned with, but John Carter makes me rethink that. You saw my list earlier, the film is long, cheesy, predictable, cliched, none of the jokes are funny, etc. Aside from some visual thrills, the score, and a wonderful ending, John Carter fails. I feel like if some of the violence and revealing garments were cut out, this movie could've been PG, as opposed to PG-13, which would allow it to become a family or kid's movie. This would've worked much better, because the movie is too silly to work as an adult/teen movie. There will be at least one sequel to John Carter, but don't expect me to tell you how it is: I'm avoiding John Carter for life, and it's probably best if you did too. Edit: Due to disappointing box office performance, there will not be a sequel after all.

There is one thing I appreciate about The Bourne movies more then anything else about them. And that is that they exist not only to make money, but to be a good movie. There are a lot of action franchises, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Sherlock Holmes, that only exist to make money. They can be entertaining, but there's not a lot of thought put into them. The Bourne series tries to be a good movie, and they, for the most part, succeed. Of course, the two films I've seen thus far in the trilogy have not been without flaws. Far from it really. But they are entertaining, at the bare minimum, they have a plot, and well-defined characters. The Bourne Supermacy, like it's predecessor is not perfect, but it's trying. The Bourne Supremacy still contains the key plot elements from the first film: Jason Bourne is trying to learn more about his past, there's a plot to find and kill him, and utter confusion for both parties. The twist is that Bourne is being assumed for a crime he didn't commit (the murder of two agents). Once again, the similarities to the 90's The Fugitive are present, but I've delved into that in my previous review of the first film. In short, The Fugitive does a much better job. The Bourne Supremacy sports believable acting, much like the first. Action movies are famous for laughable dialogue and stiff acting, but The Bourne Supermacy has neither. Matt Damon performs very well for this episode in the Bourne trilogy. The rest of the actors also perform well, but it's pointless to compliment each actor individually. The action is considerably better in this sequel than in the original. Also, there are some very good chase scenes (there were chase scenes in the first, but they were quite dull to be honest), even though some of the automobiles seem a little too indestructible. There's even some well-needed emotion that wasn't present the last time around. The score, however, is less than satisfactory. The percussion is much too loud and overpowering, often annoying. Some of the instrument choices are questionable (including one instrument that we hear twice that resembles the belch of an obese couch potato), and many of the themes feel a little lost. Also, there are some jarring similarities to the superior Pirates of the Caribbean score. Also, the girl we see sleeping with Bourne at the beginning of the film is Marie from the first film. I tell you this, because I would not have recognized her if my companion had not told me so. Her hair is blonde, she looks different (she's wearing more makeup) and she even SOUNDS different. It doesn't make too much of a difference, though, because she dies within twenty minutes of the film's opening. And this brings up a major flaw of this movie: Bourne doesn't have a partner. In one respect, this works better because now Bourne is free to move at his own pace. However, this gives Bourne a little less personality, and it makes certain parts of the film feel a little empty. One scene at the beginning is near a stand with tons and tons of Lays brand potato chips, all the labels facing the screen. It would be hard to believe that there wasn't some sort of pay-off here. Also, there's a completely unnecessary scene that occurs in a club. There are some skimpily dressed women and it just feels so thrown in. This scene was literally added just for male appeal, and it disgusts me that this was thrown in just because guys like to see half-naked women. Really? It's unnecessary and tasteless. I digress. Lastly, The Bourne Supremacy doesn't feel completely connected to the first film. That's not to say it contradicts the first, but I feel confident that someone could watch The Bourne Supermacy with no knowledge of the first film and completely understand what was going on. The Bourne Supremacy is just as good as the original, and maybe just a bit better. There's problems to be sure; irritating score, unnecessary club scene, and the fact that the seeing the first film isn't even necessary for viewing this sequel. But the fantastic cast, great action and chase scenes, and some actual emotion more than make up for it's shortcomings.

I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book. In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game. The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18. But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me. Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year. There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional. The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera. In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result. The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen. Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done. The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers. The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book. This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction. Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough. Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes. Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this. The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them. May the odds be ever in your favor, and happy Hunger Games!

Though it's not quite the incredible film critics were making it out to be, The Bourne Identity manages to entertain the whole way through, and it's hard to imagine someone being bored during the film. A body of a man is found floating in the ocean. This man has no idea who he is, who he was, or anything about his past. His ability to speak many different languages and provide detailed summaries about surroundings and people by just glancing at them suggests he was part of something big. Turns out, his name is Jason Bourne. And he's an assassin, and a good one. But now, he's on the run with the girl, in order to figure out more about his past, and not die. As I watched the film, I was constantly reminded of another action film I saw recently: The Fugitive. The Fugitive was a 90's film with Harrison Ford, who plays a man named Richard Kimble, falsely charged with the murder of his beloved wife. He escapes prison, and is on the lam. There are many reasons why The Fugitive is better than The Bourne Identity. For one, The Fugitive is more emotionally involving. We care about Dr. Kimble, and we feel his loss. The Bourne Identity offers no reason for us to care about any of the characters, so it's hard to root for either side. Also, The Fugitive is much more frantic. Dr. Kimble's race from the cops never really stops until the very end. Jason Bourne stops every so often, as if to take a breather from the action. We don't feel the thrill with The Bourne Identity, like we did with The Fugitive (and the generic chase scenes don't help). The film lacks smarts as well. The Fugitive was a nice little mystery alongside an action movie, but The Bourne Identity requires little thinking. We learn Jason Bourne's main role within half an hour. But The Bourne Identity isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be. There's lots of action. Maybe even more so than The Fugitive. There's gun fights, and fist fights. There's some exciting (and somewhat unrealistic) escape scenes as well. The film also benefits from a solid cast. Never for a minute will you question a lack of quality in the performances. Matt Damon provides a frustrated man who lost his memory. Franka Potente acts convincingly as an even more confused and worried Marie Kreutz, who wants nothing more then to get out of this mess. The rest of the cast is equally strong. I usually don't comment about the score in action films because they're usually very run-of-the-mill. This one was a little bit better than that, but the over-powering drums keep me from praising it too much. The main flaw with The Bourne Identity, however, was it's lack of a final fight. No cinematic duel to the death. In The Fugitive, we had a manic fight/hide-and-seek/out wit game going, that was heart-pounding. We get no such thing in The Bourne Identity, which surprised me, considering the fact that this was in fact, a movie about action. The Bourne Identity is perfect for teenage boys. It's fun, it's got some good action scenes, and a strong cast. It entertains from start to finish. It does suffer from problems though, such as a lack of thrill, no cinematic duel, and no need to think. But in the end, good outweighs the bad, and I'm ready for the sequel.

I just don't understand all the bad reviews for this film. Atlantis- The Lost Empire is another wonderful Disney film. Atlantis- The Lost Empire doesn't really break a whole lot of new ground, but it's an exceptionally entertaining animated film. The film is about Milo Thatch, a young professor that no one takes seriously who is in search of Atlantis. Once again, Milo's funding proposition is turned down. But all that changes when he's given a package from his long deceased grandfather, and given proper funding by a associate of his. Now Milo goes in search of Atlantis with a crew of colorful characters. The characters are hilarious, to be vague. Dirt experts, explosive enthusiasts, and grease-loving chefs make up a small part of a large and amusing cast. And the voice cast only adds depth to these characters. There are also plenty of genius one liners. The animation boasts impressive visual effects, but there are a lot of flat backgrounds. The score is generally impressive as well. The climatic battle isn't incredible, and it won't raise your pulse, but it's certainly entertaining, and I've seen a lot of action movies with considerably worse final battles than this. Atlantis- The Lost Empire provides a funny and adventurous film that will surely entertain kids and parents alike.

Hmmmm. There are action sequences, plenty of one liners, and Robert Downey Jr. I can only deduce that this is another Hollywood box office smash. And silly old me, I just saw the film. My friends pestered me about this for the longest time. They loved the film, and were positive I would too. I told them I'd get around to it, until finally one of my friends lent me the movie to watch. My feelings about this unique film are a little mixed. The film wants to be clever, but very little smarts at all are needed to view this film. Naturally, this film is geared towards teenage boys, who for the most part, are not interested in an intellectually stimulating film. They just want to see Downey deliver witty lines, and watch him beat up thugs. So, if that's what you came to see, you will not be disappointed. However those wanting a more intelligent film, should not look here. Even when the Sherlock Holmes is explaining how he figured out the case at the end, it's through many clues that the viewer didn't have a chance of deciphering themselves, which is quite contradictory to what Sherlock Holmes is all about. I know the target audience, so I expected as much, but my mother who viewed the film with me, was quite irritated at the obscure clues. A good mystery should be tailored so that the audience can try to solve the mystery too (and make it hard enough, so that they can't figure it out). This film does nothing of the sort, instead, we merely learn at the end, that Sherlock had seen things that the camera never shows us, making it impossible to solve the mystery ourselves. But like I said, the target audience doesn't care about such things, so therefore, the film is oddly "smartless." But I digress. On the other hand, the cast does a fantastic job at portraying each of their characters, even if some lines were delivered a little hammy. Also, the musical score, composed by Hanz Zimmer, is very good, and absolutely hilarious. Music doesn't commonly make me smile (out of humor anyway), but this score did. Though many of the action sequences were rather ordinary, there were definitely a handful that kept me on the edge of my seat, and I'm sure the target audience will eat it up. The film is quite amusing, as one can expect with from the leading actor, but for some reason, the film wasn't quite as humorous as I was expecting. It was funny enough, anyway. Lastly, and this may be a major problem for some, but this film just doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. It feels like Robert Downey Jr. makes another million dollars. I suppose this is to be expected, but somehow, I was hoping that there might be some sort of Sherlock spirit to this, but alas, there was not. I was not wowed, but I most definitely enjoyed myself. I do wish, though, that the film was a bit more intelligent, and this film doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes at all. Regardless, this is an enjoyable romp, and I'll probably catch the sequel on DVD. Consider me entertained, but not impressed.

Another Dr. Suess adaption. I say this without enthusiasm or disappointment. Dr. Suess films are usually just mediocre, nothing to get excited over. However, they make a lot of money. Thus, we get the movie adaption of "The Lorax." I won't lie, I've never read The Lorax, nor do I know anything about it, aside from it's environmental message. But I can tell this film really stretched the source material. Even with the extensive (and uninteresting) chase scene, even with the half-dozen of musical numbers (only one of which I really enjoyed), and even with the additional characters added, the film has a relatively modest running time. The Lorax isn't that good, unfortunately. It has strengths, but it also has a lot of weaknesses. For one, it seems The Lorax has no imagination for itself. At least half of the material of the film has been borrowed from other films. The "adorable" brown bears that wander around speaking in gibberish are obviously a rip off of the minions in Despicable Me. The prank that the Lorax plays on the Once-ler, by putting his bed in the river is a rip off from Parent Trap. And speaking of the "bed-in-the-river" prank, I must ask how it's physically possible for a bed, frame and all, to float in the water. There is nothing unique about the characters. We've seen them all in other movies. O' Hare is the generic, evil, power-hungry villain. Audrey is the generic, tom-boy, girl that the main character falls in love with. There are even characters in this movie that seem to appear in different forms. The Lorax just can't run by itself. It has to take ideas from elsewhere. The voice cast is average, but the voice of the main character, Ted, just doesn't work. He's supposed to sound like he's 10. Don't have Zac Efron voice him, get a little boy! But I digress. On the flipside, the animation is gorgeous. It can't match the detail of Rango or Tintin, but it makes up for it with vibrant colors that really bring the world of Dr. Suess to life. Also, the musical score by John Powell is very good, though it doesn't really break any new ground. And to be honest, I really didn't like the choir bits. And did I mention my feelings about the songs in the movies? Aside from the one at the beginning, they were all very uninspired, and usually dull. Some of the gags are quite good, but there were too many stale ones to make humor the strength of the film. There are also attempts of "cuteness" that over stays it's welcome. There are, however, some surprisingly touching moments, and there are times where you might just sit back and think for a moment (heaven forbid, you may actually think during a movie). There's certainly a curious amount of food for thought on display. The one thing I like most about the film, is also the film's main problem: The singing fish. There are three fish that looks like that of Cat and the Hat, that sing, not words, but notes. This is all performed in barbershop-quartet form, and is very amusing (there's one moment in particular when they hum the Mission Impossible theme). The reason this is the film's biggest problem, is because they're the best part. If the strongest thing about a movie is a recurring gag, you've got a problem. And that's the problem with The Lorax. It's not good enough to remember outside of a couple good gags. The rest is fluff. The target audience, however, (kids between 2 and 10) will love this film, I guarantee it. The auditorium I saw the movie in had not a single spare seat, and every kid in the room was laughing their heads off. I heard very few parents laugh. This isn't a bad movie. It's just a kid's movie, and it's somewhat painful to say that.

Stop motion is a curious art. It never looks as real as CGI, and it's not as fluid as CGI. Also, it's extremely difficult to master. In fact, one would wonder why anyone would bother making a stop motion movie, as opposed to a CGI movie. The reason, is that stop motion has an odd, old fashioned, hand made feel to it. And somehow, that feel has been captured and placed into this movie, and it's not just evident in the animation. Fantastic Mr. Fox is inspired from Roald Dahl's picture book by the same name. The film follows the story of Mr. Fox, who starts stealing farmer's merchandise again, without telling his wife. Mr. Fox has been planning some "great heist," despite his promises to his wife, claiming he would quit. Soon, the three meanest farmers of them all (Farmers Boggis, Bunce, and Bean), decide to end Mr. Fox's reign once and for all. The film's dry humor is both witty and hilarious. No movie in the world can stand up to the unique humor that Fantastic Mr. Fox displays. I give points to the outstanding voice talents (namely for George Clooney and Meryl Streep), and the comedic score by Alexandre Desplat. The animation is spectacular. By far the best I've seen in a stop motion film. It's truly fantastic. Even for stop motion, it looks incredibly good fashioned, and that is a very good thing. Unlike the book, however, this is not a piece of entertainment I can recommend for younger children. It's too dark, and they probably won't get many of the jokes (they may get a kick out of all the fuzzy animals, however). This is more of an older kids and parents flick. Fantastic Mr. Fox is fun, entertaining, unique, and visually wonderful. It is not hard to understand why they call it "Fantastic" Mr. Fox.

9 is not a casual film. This isn't the kind of movie where you invite a bunch of friends over, expecting an "awesome" movie. That's not to say it's a bad movie, it's quite good in fact. It's just not a typical film. It's bleak, it's eerie, and even the action, though strong, has a lot of symbolic meaning. I don't often watch films like 9, nor do I want to. 9 offers only a few smiles, and no laughs. Rule #1 for me, it has to have humor. I don't mind serious films, but a little humor can go a long way in helping me remember the film, and enjoy it. 9 manages to entertain without laughs. But 9 has a lot of emotion anyway. Fear certainly comes to mind, as does sadness. The PG-13 rating was not earned from language or sexual content. Part of it comes from the bloodless, yet intense violence. The more protruding part comes from the darkness. Despite it's limited inappropriate content, this is not a film for kids. It's dark themes may even challenge older ones. The story isn't all that sophisticated, to be honest. And there's more than a few cliches. There are plot points we've seen before, and characters that may evoke a sense of deja vu. But that's okay, because the movie is strong. The animation is incredible. The musical score, though a little run of the mill, is appropriately creepy, and it knows when to keep quiet. The voice cast is filled with stars that shine, but don't distract. Of course, you didn't come to see any of that. Depending on who you are, you came for one of two things; an intellectual film, and thought provoking themes, or epic machine vs. rag doll fights. If action is what you came for, you shouldn't be disappointed. There are plenty of, I shouldn't say duels, but fights between the stitch dolls, and the mechanical beasts. This film is not made up of action throughout, so teens coming ONLY for the action will surely be disappointed, but there's enough action to thrill and excite. If you came for intellectual stimulation, you will have to wait for after the film to enjoy that bit. During the movie, you will have to do little thinking. This is the kind of flick that inspires conversation after viewing. As the film runs, you simply have to sit back and enjoy. 9 is a wonderful movie. It's by no means, one for the ages, but it's a thought-provoking, heart pounding little flick, that can surely be enjoyed by any one who wants to try something, a little new.

I firmly believe that "The Princess and the Frog" is one of the best non-pixar animated film ever to be created. There has never been a better argument for the revival of traditional animated films. "The Princess and the Frog," follows of the story of Tiana, a young woman who dreamed of opening her own resteraunt since she was a child. She's so close to her dream, when she gets outbid for the building she wants, and worse; turns into a frog due to a voodoo spell. Tiana and the spoiled Prince Navine must find a way to turn back into a human. This film is visually enchanting, with gorgeous 2D animation that even rivals modern day CGI. One particularly dazzling scene, is during Dr. Facilier's song, "Friends on the Other Side," a vibrant colored, and elaborate musical number that will win the audience's attention with ease. So, there are lots of songs, as I should probably mention. Some worse than others, but there's nothing terrible. They range from mediocre, and even incredible. Randy Newman pens all these songs, and composes the score. All Disney princess films have their magic. This time around, there's voodoo. Certainly there will be discerning parents, and sensitive children may be frightened. I personally enjoyed this unique, and far less generic take. It's darker, and has much more potential. It also provides a lot of unique bits in the film. The cast is colorful and unique, the movie is hilarious, and at times, quite emotional. There may not be a lot of tears, but you wouldn't be human not be touched by this wonderful film. I am disappointed that this movie has yet to spark any new 2D developments with Disney. This has to be one of the best examples of 2D animation out there. "The Princess and the Frog" should not be missed or overlooked, it is a treasure.

A disappointing third film in the Pirates series. It suffers from all the problems of the first and second, and then some. Much of the appeal of the first two are gone, and what remains is a confusing, boring, and unfunny second sequel. Problems abound from everywhere, so I'll be working hard to narrow it down. For one, Johnny Depp's role as Jack Sparrow is once again shrunken into a smaller part. Also there is absolutely no action that is even vaguely interesting (after the first half hour). In fact, the last hour is at least 45 minutes action, and it's surprisingly dull. In fact, it's tedious. It's just people killing each other, and nothing interesting about it. There's no variety, no interesting atmosphere. Just swords clashing. There is a plot, which is more than what can be said for the second, but it's so confusing, with so many characters and sub plots and deceptions and people changing sides, that it's almost completely incomprehensible. Most of the characters are obnoxious, and though that was apparent in the first two, it is even more so now. There are too many flat gags, too many boring scenes, and too many characters for the film to flow well. There were times when I wondered what the purpose was for really anything going on during the movie. There are some good things though. The first half hour is strong, just like the first two flicks, but after that, the movie is drop dead boring. The score is another winner from composer Hanz Zimmer, albeit a tad familiar. The acting is dependable, and even admist a thousand bad jokes, there's at least a few laughs (or chuckles really). There is one bizzare scene where godess of the sea, Calypso is turned back into her original form. This scene is so weird, stupid, and nonsensical, it's hard not to burst out laughing (I most certainly did). Let's just say that she grows about 1,000 feet high, talks like she has really bad congestion, looks like she's constipated, and eventually explodes into a million crabs. It's even more ridiculous on screen. When the film closes, you will either be waiiting in great anticipation for the fourth (if you enjoyed it), or you'll be fast asleep or about ready to be (if you're me).

This film is very similar to the first film. I refer to the flaws, the strengths, and in essence, everything that has to do with the first film. This is not good, nor bad. The first movie was an enjoyable rumpus, but it was filled with flaws and holes. This film was no different, but it balances out as being nearly as good, if not equal to the first. The first similarity between the two films is the first half hour. The content is different enough, but it starts in the same way as the first. That is, a brilliant first half hour, then an hour and a half of pirates that never is as good as the first bit. This time however, I was entertained a little bit more the rest of the way through. The first half hour wasn't as strong as the first film's beginning, but it makes up for it with a stronger body. The special effects are incredible, even better than the first. The scenes with the legendary Krakken in particular are very good. And this brings up one of "Dead Man's Chest's" biggest strengths; it's action scenes. Unlike the first, much of the action is fun and memorable. There is one elaborate part where a chase for a chest, a moving sword fight, and a clash with Davy Jone's crew all occurs at once on a beach, in a mill, and in a jungle. It's very entertaining, and quite thrilling. It's also quite elaborate, the way everything occurs at once, but I couldn't help but think about how much was just filled in with CGI later, rather than filming simotaneously. This film does, however have some new flaws the first didn't have. One thing is the plot, or more specifically, lack of. I felt like I kept waiting for the plot to kick in. It never really did. Also, the character of Jack Sparrow was one of the most entertaining bits of the first film. Unfortunately, he has a considerably smaller role in this film, and he can't truthfully be considered the star in this episode. This leads to a lot of dull stretches. On the upside, the score is even stronger than that of the first. This time, it's fully composed by Hanz Zimmer and it's not only good, it's incredible. This is a soundtrack you'll want on your iPod. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is just as good as the first; with weaknesses and strengths balancing out to create an equal package. One just wishes that there was some kind of reason to all the fighting and action, because frankly, we never get one.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl is flawed fun. It's mostly predictable, it's got some good gags, but it's heavily flawed. The film has literally HUNDREDS of contradictions and plot holes. I enjoyed the film, but the contradicitions were distracting. This film has a fantastic first half hour. It's funny, and thrilling at times. However, after that first half hour, the quality drops. It's still enjoyable, and you will be entertained, but it never lives up to that first half hour. The musical score is VERY good. There were too many hands in the score for me to properly credit anyone, but Hanz Zimmer played a big part in the score, and it shows. The action, is mostly generic, and will never have you on the edge of your seat. At times, the action is even predictable. At the minimum, it's passable, and not terrible. The acting is strong. Performances from Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Geofferey Rush shine. The story is a little on the cliche side, but it's a silly tale, and no one really cares. In addition to contradictions, there were a lot of moments where I rolled my eyes at the improbability of it all. Of course, teenage boys tend to eat that stuff up. POTC: TCOTBP is a fun, albeit flawed movie, that's probably best for teens and tweens with low expectations.

Note: I know nothing about Astro Boy apart from this movie. I hereby accuse this movie of various villainies and crimes. Astro Boy rips off various other films, is filled with cliches, there's an abundance of plot holes, and enough cop-outs to go around. This movie is a blundered mess. My main problem; it's an enjoyable blundered mess. Astro Boy is about a child named Toby Tenma (Freddie Highmore). He's a robot genius, like his father, Dr. Tenma (Nicolas Cage). During an unfortunate robot malfunction, Toby perishes in an explosion. Dr. Tenma is greatly saddened by this loss, so he uses his son's DNA to create an exact robot replica, and when the boy awakes, Dr. Tenma never tells Toby about his transformation. However, some critical changes have occured. In fact, this "Astro Boy," turns out to be even smarter than before (an impressive feat). But he doesn't just improve academically. Astro Boy slowly discovers his various new abilities. He can withstand serious damage and high falls, and has the ability to fly. But Astro Boy just isn't the same as Toby, and Dr. Tenma just can't find it in his heart to love the robot. I thoroughly enjoyed the first half hour of this film. The animation, though simple, is gorgeous and slick. The story line was going pretty well, too. There was a pretty generous amount of humor, even. I felt like I might actually enjoy myself, contradicting my thoughts about the flick before viewing. Unfortunately, the film went downhill from there. It wasn't a significant drop at first. The next half hour held up pretty well, but it was bombarded with cliches and unsucessful attempts at plot twists. This second half hour was arguably funnier than the first, but there were also way more jokes that ended up being stale, and recycled. I also started noticing various rip-offs of other flicks here. I had already spotted a couple in the first half hour, but there were significantly more here. Finally, we come to the grand finale, where we get countless cop outs, rip-offs, cheesy lines, dumb jokes, cliches, and guess-before-it-happens moments. This also includes a completely random and undeveloped change in Dr. Tenma's character, and a boring and utterly stupid climatic duel between Astro Boy and the Peace Keeper, an evil robot charged with negative energy (both literally and metaphorically). Worse, there were tons of scenes in this last half-hour that had the potential to turn the film around, and make into the grand piece of cinematic entertainment I wanted it to be, but never had the guts to try. Plus, throughout the film, there are gaps in the story, dozens of characters with no personality that make stale jokes, and the movie just moves too fast. Even the score is relatively bland. The film really isn't as bad as I'm making it sound. It's got a lot to love, and there's definitely a few things that make the film worth watching. I'm just disappointed with the final product. It could've been much better. It should've been much better. Astro Boy could've been a masterpiece, but in the end, it just settles for being mediocre.

Jurassic Park is surprisingly good, and I say "surprisingly," because I didn't know how much more I really wanted to watch after the first hour. Roughly the first 60 minutes is contaminated with utter boredom. In fact, most of this first hour wasn't even necessary. If I could crop out the 5-10 minutes of the first hour that were important, I imagine that the audience would still understand what was happening. Maybe it was just my inner-boy speaking, but I wanted to see some dinosaurs for cryin' out loud! But I digress. (To the film's credit, though, we do see some dinos before they begin their reign of terror, but most are in the background, one we only get a glimpse of his claw and eye. Only one dino is fully exposed, and it doesn't really do anything. And before the dinos start attacking, we see two more; a baby, as well as a sick triceratops). After you get past the first hour, the film quickly picks up. I won't say how many, but people do die (and we see two dismembered body parts before the film is over). To be honest, I've never seen a film that would truly qualify as "scary," but this certainly "freaked me out." I always thought dinos were terrifying creatures, but now that fear has been greatly multiplied. In addition to an excellent job on making the dinos appear so suddenly (you'll probably be startled by an un-expected reptile at least once), the dinos look incredibly real, despite the fact that this film is nearly 20 years old. The characters in the film weren't quite one-dimensional, but they weren't very fleshed out either. The plot was slightly outrageous, but if you can force yourself to believe it, the film is much more enjoyable. The score by legendary composer, John Williams, was something of a disappointment. This is by far the worst I've heard from him, though it's not that bad. It's serviceable, and sometimes, that's all one can ask for. Though there are times when the music is a little irritating and repetitive. The film is lots of fun, and it's truly scary. There are some comedy elements, but it's mostly for the fright and joy of seeing people chased by dinos. So, if that's what you came for, you won't be disappointed. That is, if you can get past that first hour.

I can sum this up in one short phrase: "PG rated horror film." Let me make this clear, this is not a film for kids under 10, or really anyone that's easily frightened (or nauseated for that matter). I'm not saying it's a bad film, but this is not a film for small children. This adaption of the Christmas Carol captures and fleshes out the creepy parts of the tale, leaving the warm and fuzzy parts a little under cooked. The creepy take on this classic is unique, and enjoyable. It's the kind of film that can be enjoyed by a wider audience than if this story had been left to the generic fuzzy ending that so many films have adopted. The story sports more style than previous adaptions. More pizazz, more depth, and more scares. I won't lie, there were times when something startled me; this film is full of GOOD scares, not the silly excuse for jolts that are in so many kid's movies these days. Even though this movie is over two years old, and motion capture has gotten significantly better (Tintin, anyone?), the animation looks great. Everything is well detailed, and everything feels real. However, there's still some stiffness in the moving, and there's one dance scene where gravity and physics are defied so many times, there's no doubt that even kids (kids that can take the scares) will point them out. I mentioned earlier that this is like a PG rated horror film. I liked this unique aspect, but I thought you might like to know what's ahead of you: a pretty creepy scene where a talking corpse (in translucent ghost form) has a conversation with Scrooge, for one. The scene is surprisingly scary, and at one point, the corpse' jaw becomes disconnected when he screams. There's no gore, but it's pretty icky anyway. In addition to this, we see another corpse (it's played as a surprise for laughs), an old wrinkled head, a fat man who's skin blows off him like dust, and two vicious goblin creatures who are very reminiscent of Lord of the Rings. The score is appropriately Christmasy, but it's not outstanding. It does a good job of setting the mood of each scene, though, but I've heard much better Christmas scores. Jim Carrey does a hilarious job as Scrooge. He's grumpy and despicable, but because you recognize him as Carrey, you can't take him seriously. This isn't really a bad thing, but it might irritate die-hard **** fans. There's also one boring, tedious, and completely unnecessary chase scene, that makes little sense, which was most likely added for the benefit of any kids in the audience (who, as I've made a point of mentioning, are brave enough to take the scares). Also, the ending is incredibly corny (though we get the feeling that Carrey was overdoing it for his own entertainment), and little Timmy barely gets any mentioning. Overall, this is an entertaining flick and even though flawed, is a fun and creepy delight. I recommend this film to anyone who likes Jim Carrey, The Christmas Carol, motion capture, or the creeps.

Okay, let me re-explain what you probably know; Cars 2 is widely being considered as Pixar's worst. This is true. It's also being widely considered as a bad film. This is not true. I personally believe this is another great film from Pixar, it just plunges a little more into the Dreamworks tub. The story revolves around Mater, rather than Lightning McQueen, a mixed decision in my opinion. On one hand, Lightning McQueen is a bland character, with little personality. And Mater, while much more interesting and defined, is also extremely one dimensional, and that really shows when he becomes the star of the show. Mater is mistaken as an American spy by two secret agents, Flinn McMissile and Holly Shiftwell. Mater then takes part in many missions, while the two secret agents have no idea he's just a regular tow truck. In the meantime, Lightning McQueen is on a World Grand Prix in hopes of beating the **** Francesco. There's a bit more to the plot than this, but that's the gist of it. The film certainly looks like a Pixar film. The animation is easily Pixar's best; appearing more detailed than that of Toy Story 3, and the various race/spy scenes give the movie a chance to show what it can do. Some things look impeccably real (in the last 20 minutes of the film, take a look at the trees). The film sounds like a Pixar movie too. The musical soundtrack is performed masterfully by Michael Giacchino. Also, the voice talents have been selected carefully, just as in all Pixar films. The original voice actors are back (though due to the death of two characters, Fillmore's voice has been replaced and Doc is deceased), though most of them get few appearances. Also, John Ratzenberger (who gets a role in every Pixar film) has an infestimal role in this film: only two lines. So, the film sounds and looks like a Pixar, but it doesn't feel like one. Compared to the other Pixars, the story is weak and disappointing. Also, there is none of the heart and emotion that made the other Pixars so lovable. There's little adult-kid balance, so most parents won't be watching with their kids, which is completely opposite of other Pixars, where parents may enjoy the film more than the kids. I said earlier that this film is more like a Dreamworks movie. This is because of the lack of emotion, the shallow story, and the kid appeal. Even the humor is a little more Dreamworks oriented, a lot of it being roll-your-eyes kind of humor, and there's even some potty humor. That's not to say you won't laugh; there are plenty of amusing bits, but overall, it pales in comparison to Pixar's previous efforts. Concluding, this is Pixar's worst film, hands down. However, it's still a great film, although flawed. It's certainly not a must see like the other Pixars, but it's good enough. Just don't do this to us again, Pixar: I won't be quite as forgiving.

Brad Bird has directed two Pixar films; The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Both of these are big favorites of mine. Browsing through films, The Iron Giant caught my eye. I could only hope that I enjoyed this film as much as I did Ratatouille or The Incredibles. The verdict is that the film wasn't was good as either Pixar films, but is more than exceptional entertainment. In fact, this is one of the best non-Pixar animated films I've ever seen. The film opens with a gorgeously animated sequence of a futuristic vehicle flying through space, until it lands in the middle of the ocean where a boat sails nearby. The captain of the boat stares curiously where he saw the flash of light...then a giant 50-foot robot emerges from the ocean. The film only gets better from there. A young boy named Hogarth is at the diner where his Mom works long hours. The boy overhears a conversation about the Iron Giant, and wonders if it truly exists. His question is later answered when he sees the robot near a power plant, and ends up saving the giant's life. The two become friends, though the boy has to hide the giant to avoid the government (and his Mom) from finding out (Think E.T.). The film is quite funny, and it's filled with stunning animation and memorable characters. The story matches up to Pixar quality, in both heart and substance. There are a lot of tricky issues that are discussed in this film; death namely. The Iron Giant is curious about Earth, and one of his experiences is a deer being shot by hunters. The Iron Giant is traumatized by the experience, and Hogarth explains death as well as he can. "Death isn't a bad thing," Hogarth says, "Everyone dies." "You die?" The Iron Giant asks. "Well, yeah, someday." Hogarth says. "...I die?" The Iron Giant ponders. "****'t know. Maybe..." The film is very thought provoking, and in some of it's many humorous scenes, laugh provoking. It's even a little tear-jerking at times. If you understand or appreciate anything about movies, this film should be viewed as a must-see. Something you have to experience at least once.

For a film that's supposed to be based off a true story, the whole film feels as fake as the many prosthetic tales made for the star of the film; a dolphin named Winter. The movie is about a young boy named Sawyer, who is very anti-social, and not doing very well in Summer school. One day, he finds a beached dolphin entangled in a rope and a crab trap. The boy immediately has feelings for the dolphin, and stops by the marine animals hospital everyday to check on the creature. It appears there is little hope for the dolphin to survive, do the dolphin's tale (or more specifically; lack of). Among many problems with this film, the biggest is the movie's lack of a reason to exist. The story has obviously been greatly fabricated from it's source, the acting is passible, the attempts at humor will only make kids laugh, and there are some parts that are so unbearably cheesy, even a child may feel skeptical. I myself, laughed only once during the film's entire duration; nearly two hours. The film is not exciting, and it's very slow and un-rewarding. It's not unwatchable, it's just very boring. There are countless cliches in this film, more than I'd like to count. Every soap opera idea in the book has been yanked out of the book and thrown into this movie. I imagine some kids might enjoy this film, as long as they don't have a short attention span, but any one else will be able to see through this cheese fest.

You should know that there is expected to be two more Tintin films, and that is a good thing. I had the pleasure of reading the many Tintin comic books when I was younger, something that I recommend doing before you see this film. After hearing there was a movie planned, I was thrilled, to say the least. Like a geek, I researched everything and anything that had to do with the film, becoming more excited with every new discovery. Then, I finally got to see the film. Was the film going to be awful? Amazing? Mediocre? I'll put it simply: I loved it. But to say I loved this film, is not enough. I simply must gush on about this film, that was everything I could have wanted it to be, with few complaints. You might know that this film is based off of the following three Tintin books; "The Crab With The Golden Claws," "The Secret Of The Unicorn," and "Red Rackham's Treasure." However, a much more accurate term would be "inspired" from these books, rather than based off of. The film only borrows scenes, locations, and characters rather than the stories and plots of each. This isn't really a bad thing though, because it's nice to get to experience a new, if familiar, adventure. When the film opens, the audience is treated to a 3 minute title sequence, portraying scenes from Tintin books, as well as showing off a fine musical theme by John Williams, whose musical talent is consistent throughout the film. In fact, it's one of my favorite film scores. Once the actual film starts, we see Tintin in a flea market-like surrounding. This scene not only sets up the film, but does a fine job of displaying some of the greatest animation I've ever seen. It looks absolutely gorgeous, and quite life-like. The style choice is ingenious; putting cartoonish characters in a life-like setting. It's not unlike what other animation studios have done, but it's much more exaggerated in this film, and much more detailed. The characters are portrayed faithfully. All the characters look like they do in the book, and the voice actors have been selected excellently. Tintin is exactly as I imagined him to be, the Thompson twins are hilarious, and all the other characters have been given a fine treatment as well. Even Bianca Castifore has a short scene. I do have a few complaints regarding the character of Captain Haddock, however. In the book, he is portrayed as cranky, and usually drunk. In the film, he's portrayed as sad, stupid, occasionaly cheerful, and usually drunk. This portrayal is not a bad one, it's just not very faithful to the books. Also, Professor Calculus is omitted from the film, but he doesn't really belong in this film anyway. However, based on what I've heard the sequel is going to be about, Calculus will probably be added to the cast. Also, for those who are curious, Snowy does not "think" as he does in the books, he's no different than any normal dog. Me and the friends that I saw the film with, have all read the books, and it was very rewarding when watching the film. There are literally DOZENS of references, cameos, and easter eggs from the Tintin books. From characters walking in the background, to props, to posters, to names, to buildings, it doesn't end! There is actually a reference to almost EVERY book in the series. There are some excellent chase scenes, some exciting fight scenes, and some thrilling escape scenes. I can't remember I had so much fun at the theater. The film was also, quite hilarious, though there was some juvenile humor that I didn't appreciate. Out of a lot of praise, I do have some complaints. I have already expressed my feelings toward the change of Captian Haddock, but I do have some other things to point out as well. For one, the movie didn't have much of a plot. It felt more like the characters were trying to get from point A to point B, without much thought about what to do when they get there. Also, the film felt somewhat non-conclusive, but I feel that this was done intentionally for the sequels. There was some cheesy dialogue (the last two lines spoken by Tintin and Haddock are ridiculously hammy), and Tintin just cannot say "Great Snakes!" without sounding forced. I do love this film, I didn't want it to end. I am looking forward to the sequels, more so than any other film, and I have great anticipations for what Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg plan to do with the next Tintin.