A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

Friends Make Christmas Better

There aren't too many people who haven't at least heard of Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. I personally enjoyed the movie, but did not see it's sequel, the name of which I do not even remember. Still, I became interested in seeing the third because of what I expected from the 3-D, which is what I got. It's solid 3-D, and very gimmicky, taking every opportunity to not only exploit it, as well as make fun of the fact they were exploiting it. Surprisingly enough, this is a 3-D film that takes place mostly at night, but the 3-D still works, and it is never hard to see what is happened on screen, a problem that a lot of 3-D films have not realized can and will happen.

The plot of the film is this. Harold (played by John Cho) wishes to impress his father-in-law (Danny Trejo), and promises to decorate the Christmas tree that his father-in-law has grown for a total of eight years. Harold's old friend Kumar (Kal Penn) comes over to bring a package left at the old apartment they used to share. The tree ends up being destroyed by accident, and the two have to find a replacement. That's the plot. That's the fun thing about films like this. The plot is made to be extremely simple, but everything that happens to the main characters is nothing short of over-the-top and ridiculous. Everything that can go wrong, and more, will go wrong.

The jokes are mostly about disgusting subjects. One man gets excrement thrown at his car window, Harold gets this nether regions stuck to a pole, and we get the most gruesome claymation sequence I have ever seen. If these are the kind of jokes you like, than you will have a ball with the film, and I can attest to that. It's a typical stoner flick, where at least one character spends most of the film either doing drugs or on drugs, and the film knows how to not make this just a cheap joke, it just goes as far as it can with what it is doing.

I saw the film in 3-D, and I recommend in the most in that format. So in 3-D, I'd say it earns itself a 3.5 out of 5. But by itself, the movie is a solid 3 out of 5 stars. It's a really fun film, and I suggest you check it out while you can still watch it in 3-D, even it the means making Christmas feel a little early.

Alice in Wonder (2010)

Ohh Pretty.... Bad.

Last year, I had several friends who had gone to see Tim Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland, a film I had little interest in. The trailers gave me a good impression of the film, it was either going to be interesting or bad. My friends all really enjoyed it, so I bit the bullet and gave the film a chance. I will upfront say I did not see the film in 3-D, but from what I have heard about the 3-D, and the way the film looked in 2-D, I saved money with good reason. People who saw the 3-D version paid extra money for absolutely nothing.

People seem to be divided about the film, which is actually how I first felt when I saw it. The look of this film is incredible, there is no denying that. The world of Alice in Wonderland has always been stylized, even in the original book. Burton's style works terrifically for this film. It's one of the darker version of Wonderland you'll ever see, and it works because of that. The giant mushrooms look cartoony, and the beasts are completely bizarre and frightening. I love the way this film looks.

 

 

But the dark aspect also gives one not so small negative. This film was given a PG rating, and that is an utter joke. Children under the age of twelve should not see this film. TWO scenes features a river filled with severed human heads. Yes, in one shot they are made of cement, but that is a facade revealed in a later scene. The heads are real, and the river is actually blood. This is at least PG-13, and I will not argue with those who think the film deserved an R. I am the type of person who fights for more G-ratings in darker children's films, knowing children can handle more than the MPAA seems to be thinking nowadays, but this is way too far for me. I repeat, do not let children under twelve see this picture. It's disgusting it got away with PG, don't let it fool you.

 

 

Another negative is the look of the film doesn't work for one character, The Mad Hatter, played by Johnny Depp. The Hatter looks like a drag queen, there is no going around it. It's ridiculous, inane. This is the ugliest, least flattering Mad Hatter costume I have ever seen, and most likely will ever see. I hated it in the trailer, and was really the reason I lost interest in the film originally. My friends tried to convince me otherwise, but I stand by what I thought then, and I still think it is a horrible design.

 

 

I would like to point out that this is a Disney film. Similar to A Christmas Carol (which I have not seen), this is an adaptation that Disney has already done. I will take this time to say the original animated version of Disney's Alice in Wonderland is a masterpiece of animation. Disney should not have tried to do another adaptation of the book, they did it perfectly the first time. Please look for the film if you are one of the few people who has never seen it, you will not regret it, it's beautiful.

 

 

This film on the other hand, has a wonderful style but absolutely no substance. While that can work for some films, it fails miserably in this one. This film is a very low two out of five stars. Part of me actually hates the film, but not enough to rank it any lower. It's a bad film, that had no reason to be made.

Paranormal Activity

All a Matter of Manners

Paranormal Activity is a movie with a fair amount of following behind it. The film uses the technique of feeling like a home movie, there is no big editing, and there is only one camera. Many attribute The Blair Witch Project as the film that launched the idea and made it popular, which I will not argue. The inexpensive and casual feeling this method gives truly can add to the fear the film is trying to give, but the style isn't too popular with some, as too many of the films leave too many questions, and end up having their editing make it feel no longer natural. That was not the case with this film.

Paranormal Activity felt like a home movie the entire run time, and even had a clever explanation for why it did look like it was edited together, the main character purposely just editing out anything that did not connect with what he was trying to tape. His long time girlfriend, who he is living with, believes something supernatural has come over her. He begins taping their everyday life, and more importantly while they are sleeping, to try and disprove her. He just ends up making it look more likely.

Many modern horror films like to rely purely on jump scares, having no build-up whatsoever, killing any aspect of terror. Paranormal Activity avoided this, having very slow and strong build-up for it's chief scares. Anything that didn't have a big build-up, still had very strong tension. This movie wanted to be scary, and it knew how to do it.

The film was very well made, as I have stated, and that alone makes me want to like the movie. However there is chief reason I do not like the film. My chief reason may seem petty to some of my readers, but I stand by it.

Our lead character, Micah, is completely unlikable. As I stated above, he is a smart protagonist, figuring out how to deal with what is happening. However, that is the only smart thing he does. One of the first things he does in the movie is go against his word to use a Ouija board, justifying his reasoning by saying he only said he wouldn't buy one, and only borrowed it. This is the most likable thing he does, and that is still fairly stupid and mean of him, it completely angers his girlfriend, who he obviously does not care about at the moment, as he believes he is right in his reasoning. He's mean-spirited, rude, and possessive throughout the whole movie. I could not stand the character, and this is a huge failure on the movie's part. If you do not care about a character in a film, than you do not feel bad for them if something bad happens to them. Horror works when we care about what it is happening to, if we don't, then it feels like just desserts, and not remotely scary.

True, his girlfriend, who's name I do not remember, is far more likable, but her character has flaws too. Notice how I have forgotten her name, this is because we don't learn too much about her. True, we get a lot of back story near the end, but it's more about the circumstance than about her herself. She's smart enough for her own good, and her stupid moments are easily shrugged off as she is just stressed out and does actually have no clue as to what is happening to her. Her biggest flaw is her level of immaturity, which really only flickers back and forth, something Micah had as well. I could not stand her calling her boyfriend "MEE-KA", it droned in my ears, and sounded like something a sixteen or even fifteen year old calls her new boyfriend, versus an adult woman who's living with someone. Or, as her boyfriend called it "Engaged to be engaged", another uncomfortably immature line for characters that are most likely in their later twenties. It did help me remember Micah's name though, I'll give it that.

It especially sad when we get the more romantic scenes, meant to show how much the care about each other. They feel out of place considering Micah shows clear signs of a possessive boyfriend, and sometimes even unnerving her a little bit. It's supposed to be touching, but it instead made me feel uncomfortable, and made me want to help her get away from her boyfriend just as much as the paranormal.

I did think the movie was well-made, I even thought the movie proved to be scary. There are just some flaws in a movie that can not be overlooked. I give the movie 2.5 out of 5 stars. A very nice try, and would have succeeded if they had a more likable protagonist.

Mystery Science Theatre 3000 The Movie

This Island, The Satellite Of Love

Quite a few people are fans of the cult classic comedy show Mystery Science Theatre 3000, set in the not too distant future. I myself enjoy the show as well, and will do my best to simplify the plot for those who have never seen it. The evil Dr. Clayton Forrester (Named after the hero of Planet of the Apes) dislikes one of his employees, so he sends him into space to watch bad movies. To stop from going insane, the worker builds the robots Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot to watch the films with him. The three mock the film the entire run-time (called "riffing"), making the films more than just watchable.

The film the three watch this time around is This Island Earth, a ridiculous science-fiction film that is honestly much better than some of the vile movies the crew has riffed. Needless to say, the three make priceless jokes about the film, but not as good as some I've heard from actual episodes. Admittedly, I see this as weaker than several episodes I've seen, but still very entertaining. You could easily watch this film before any of the episodes and easily get the plot.

Also different is the style the film is shot. The skits with Forrester planning to conquer the world, and the three just goofing around or trying to escape are much brighter and better lite than any episode, and they clearly used a movie budget. Everything is crisp, and I honestly really love that about the film.

As stated above, the actual episodes did usually prove better, but if you want to see the film first, it would be basically the same experience. The movie gets 3 out of 5 stars from me. While not as good as several episodes of the show, it's a riot from start to first, even if they movie they riff is not.

Black Christmas (1974)

Sleeeep in Heavenly Peeeeeace

We're all familiar with the slasher genre. We've all heard of Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, and their respective titles. But there are several slasher films that are not as well-known. It is actually confusing as to why Black Christmas is one of the forgetten ones, as many argue it as the first slasher film, without it there would not be a slasher genre in the first place. As a pioneer for it's genre, the film should not be forgotten, which is why I'm glad to do this review.

Like all slasher films, our focus is on a group of teenagers. These teens a women in college to be exact, our main character being Jess Bradford (Olivia Hussey), a woman currently dating a slightly ill-tempered musician, and is planning to abort their child. Not out of malicious reasons, but just because she feels she is not ready. Her boyfriend Peter (Keir Dullea) wants to have their child, and he starts going through a bit of a breakdown throughout the movie do to their arguing about it.

Another important character is Barb (Margot Kidder), a drunk do to the fact her mother never really tries to spend time with or talk to her. Barb is a large jerk throughout the movie, but we can relate to her and actually like her. A lot of modern horror movies could learn a lot from her character, you should have a rude and mean character, but you still have to them just as likable as all of the other good characters. Barb is especially important because she is the one who incurs the wrath of the film's serial killer, who may or may not be named Billy.

The killer starts off by making threatening and perverted phone calls to the sorority, and Barb, while drunk, decides to give the killer a piece of her mind. His response is "...I'm going to kill you..." We never see Billy's face, or even most of his body, he is always in the shadows. The one time we see his eye still adds mystery, because the filmmakers refuse to say which actor they used, and as I mentioned above, there is question behind if his name really is Billy. What we do know is that he is a serial killer, and he somehow has to power to distort his voice over the phone, which is somehow even more terrifying than it sounds. You will never forget what Billy says to the women over the phone.

As for a horror film in total, I only need to say this. This is one of the most horrifying films I have ever seen, possibly the most. There are no jump scares, at least none that I felt were jump scares. Everything scary is this movie is done slowly, and emotionally. This movie will scare you, no matter how unflappable you believe you are.

The film is a solid 4 out of 5. If you are even a casual fan of horror, you need to find this film. There is a remake of the film that is nowhere near as good and received poor reviews, so just remember the original is from Nineteen Seventy-Four. It's the earliest slasher movie, and it still out scares a lot of them.

Tangled

Are We Sure This Is A CG Film?

This was a film I was ready to either dislike, or think was completely standard. I was not happy when I heard the film would be CG animation instead of traditionally hand-drawn, I did not think the title needed to change after being called "Rapunzel", and I guess I let my petty complaints get the best of me. I finally saw the film thanks to Netflix instant, and I'm glad I did. Tangled  is a damn good film.

While I do not usually care for CG animation over hand-drawn, I have enjoyed these films before, and not just the ones from Pixar or Dreamworks. Ice Age  comes to mind. But what makes this stand out from all of the other CG films I've seen is that this one feels like traditional hand-drawn animation. There is nothing stiff or realistic about the CG, it is instead completely smooth and cartoonish. I love the way this film looks and feels. Could it have worked if the film had been hand-drawn? Very much so. But I can't help but adore how stylistic this film is, and hope to see more CG films like it in the future. In the least, it would mean the creator's made sure to put time and effort into their creation.

As a Disney Princess film, it works as well. Our protagonist is fun, cheerful, and easy to root for. Our villain is despicable, mean, and terrifying when she wants to be. Our love interest is dashing, clever, and a thief. Yes, this film actually has a thief as our love interest, and he knows it, and reveals in it. He's not a villain per say, but he is not too toned down. And for once, in these kind of romances, the heroine completely knows he's a crook. There is no scene in the movie were Rapunzel finds out her love is a thief and calls him a liar, she knows he's one from the start, he never hides the fact. I like this, it makes the film feel different, but not as much as the fact the two animal leads are completely silent. They do great visual jokes, but they never speak, even though they act like cartoon animals.

My biggest complement, this is a movie that deserves it's PG rating. The PG rating is stamped on almost any film nowadays. But I think the creators wanted PG from the start, and if they did, it shows. Scenes featuring blood is realistic and intense, nothing gory, but nothing like a prick on the finger either. The action is slapstick, for the most part, but nothing too intense that I would call it PG. Still, I would actually agree with the MPAA that the film would need to be toned down a little for a G rating. But this film excepts it's PG rating, and makes sure it earned. My hat is off to the film makers.

My rating is a 3.5 out of 5. If you've got a little daughter or a son, they will enjoy this movie. Although you daughter will be more likely to admit it. If you don't, such as myself, then it's a fun film and worth a rental, possibly a purchase.



Cannibal! The Musical

No Man, That Blood's Totally Not Fake.

Usually when making a film, song, play, anything meant for entertainment, the purpose to make it good. Sometimes, something is made intentionally bad, this is because something that is bad can end up having a different kind of entertainment. Plus, if someone legitimately does not like it, they can't truly complain, it was made with the intention of being bad. This style only works for comedy, of course, because bad effects, dialogue, and sets can make people either laugh or make them mad. It's not surprising to know that Trey Parker was writer and director of this film, Cannibal! The Musical. For those not in the know, Parker is one of the creator's of the long-lived South Park. The poster admits "From the creators of South Park", but I do not know who did what except for Parker.

Parker also plays the main character, Alfred Packer. History buffs may recognize the name, as Alfred Packer was a real-life person, a prospector accused of murder and cannibalism. The film is only loosely based on the history, and since I know very little about Packer, I can not say for sure if anything in the film is close to the truth. But it doesn't really matter, because that's against the point of the film anyway. Is Parker good at this role? Not really, he's very quiet and soft spoken, barely speaking. But with the rule that this movie is trying to be comically bad, it works very well.

The movie starts off with Packer being in trail for cannibalism, but we eventually get to find out what really happened when Packer confesses his story to a reporter by bringing up his horse, whom he treats like a girlfriend, but without being gross. His story starts off with the first song of the film. This is what truly shines through in the film. The songs are very catchy, and feel a bit like a middle school musical. No matter who bad all of the acting is, the sets are just so laughable and the singing is so catchy, you can't help but enjoy yourself. But instead of lying to the little kids that it was perfect, you can admit you liked the show because it was bad. The blood is supposed to look fake, the teepees the Natives (Played by Japanese, who do not hide the fact) are suppose to look like they were made out of garbage bags, and we're supposed to tap our feet to the cheesy and catchy tunes throughout.

The movie scores a 3 out of 5 from me. Maybe it's because as a film buff and a theatrical type, I can enjoy the poking fun at cheap sets and acting a little more than others. It helps that I love jokes about darker material such as cannibalism and murder. Still, those are still very good reasons to watch the film, regardless. Especially since you can watch the film for free online, such put the movie title into any search engine and you'll find the site soon enough, where you can download the soundtrack for free as well.

The Other Guys

It's A Comedy, And That's All

I will start off this review by admitting I am not a fan of Will Ferrell. I find his typical act to be annoying, loudmouthed, and unwatchable. It doesn't help he generally always plays the exact same character, no matter what movie he is in. His role this time is much more subdued, and far more likable. Still, I found him trying to slip into his usual act, but thankfully he did stop himself, or at least was told to stop himself by the director.

While I did find Ferrell to actually be a little fun for a chance, he was not the strongest of the two "Other Guys", that title belongs to Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg does something like Ferrell usually would do, plays someone who is loud, a little obnoxious, but Wahlberg actually knows how to pull it off and make himself both likable and understandable.

Now that our leads have been taking care of, it is time to say what I think about the actual film. As a comedy, the film main goal is to make the audience laugh, and a bigger goal is to keep the audience laughing. Did the film make me laugh? Yes. Did the film keep me laughing? Not really. As a comedy, the film is a perfect example of "okay". It's not mediocre, but it's not that good. The timing for some of the joke's is spot on, and sometimes it's a bit off. That being said, some of the jokes are quite good and thought out, while some of them fall completely flat and feel forced, most of those jokes being about the needless product placement and shout-outs to said products.

Plus, while the two "other guys" do work well as a team, they are nowhere near as good as the starting characters played by Samuel L Jackson and Dwayne Johnson. The two of them kept me in stitches, and were forced out of the movie in what felt like a cheap shot, making it a cheap joke, but at least one that furthers the plot. I would like to see a short film about these two, and considering how much attention this movie will probably get due to the big name stars, I'm going to bet on that wish.

To give the movie an accurate score, I'd have to give it a 3 out of 5. However, this is a low 3. A movie that while it is enjoyable, still feels like more work should have been put into just for it to be slightly above average. However, for people who do not like Will Ferrell's usual antics, I give the movie a recommendation. And I think that is one of the best compliments I can give it.

The Terminator

Run, Sarah, Run

Director and writer James Cameron has become quite well-known in the past twenty or thirty years. From the action-packed Aliens (My favorite of his), the heart-melting Titanic, and the terrifying science fiction thriller known simply as The Terminator. The film is fondly remembered, being the movie that made people familiar with Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with Conan the Barbarian (1982). Yes, believe it or not, there was a time no one had any clue who Schwarzenegger was, until he appeared on-screen as an unstoppable metal-man who still haunts the dreams of many.

Our main character is Sarah Conner (Linda Hamilton). Sarah is a regular everyday waitress, there's nothing special about her, and dates continue to stand her up while her roommate gets to spend many a night with her piggish but still caring boyfriend. But Sarah as it turns out will be a mother in the near future, to a boy named John, who leads a revolution against the evil SkyNet industries, who have taken over the world and murdered the populace. SkyNet decides to erase John from history by killing Sarah in the past, sending a ruthless machine with the outer appearance of a man, the Terminator.

But the revolution overhears this plan, and they send back in time the hero of the movie, Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn). Kyle is a dependable man, the kind of guy who wish would be in other thriller or slasher movies, as he can out think and even out fight the big metal brute, a hard task to even think about. Kyle is devoted to the cause, and even more so to his leader John. Kyle does his best to not only protect Sarah, but calm her and assure her about what is going on. He's a great hero for the film, and he's written in a way that he doesn't really overshadow Sarah, who holds her ground around what you'd expect in a thriller.

And kudos to this being a time travel film that prevents any paradoxes. The portal is one way only, anyone who goes back in time can not come back to their time. This would make a paradox a lot harder to create, and would probably just reroute itself anyway, considering said person isn't truly in their original timeline anymore anyway. It sounds confusing the way I write it, but it's never even mentioned in the movie, because it's never a problem, hence my explanation.

My only problem with this film is a bit of a spoiler. Let's just say their is a scene near the end of the film that drags on a little longer than necessary. The scene is written well enough so I do not question why it is happening, I believe every moment of it and understand why the characters are doing what they are considering how the movie is being played out. But it's still longer than needed, and took me out of focus for a brief while.

As I said, I don't personally see it as Cameron's best work. Many however, due, and I can't blame them for that. The film gets a solid 4 out of 5 from me. If a giant robotic man is hunting you in your dreams, than do your best to dream up a Kyle Reese to save you.

Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Sometimes All You Need is a Little Stuff and Fluff

Having a love for Winnie the Pooh seems to be a universal thing. Especially for someone like me, who grew up with dear ol' Pooh Bear. Despite being loved like he is, Pooh hadn't been in theatres for a total of twelve years until this latest film. Once I heard about the movie, it instantly became the movie I had to see this summer, no matter what, above all others. And for my patience, I was rewarded with one of the best Winnie the Pooh films ever made.

Since it has been so long since Pooh Bear and friends have been in theatres, it really isn't surprising to find out that a lot of the voice actors are different than last time. Winnie and Tiger are still voiced by Jim Cummings, doing his impression of their original voice actors Sterling Holloway and Paul Winchell respectively. But the rest of our old friends have new voices. Some make since, like Piglet now being voiced by Travis Oates, as John Fiedler passed away in 2005. Even though I prefer Fiedler as Piglet due to memory, Oates as Piglet is one of the best replacement voices in the film. Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Wyatt Dean Hall play Kangra and Roo quite well, and Bud Luckey is a good Eeyore. However, Craig Ferguson as Owl takes a little to get used to, so overall it's not bad, but it's not great either. And that leaves Rabbit, being voiced by Tom Kenny. I'll be honest, I do like Tom Kenny, but this is one of his voices that just sounds like a hundred of the other characters he's played. He just didn't sound like Rabbit, nor did it feel like he should have been Rabbit.

Besides our fuzzy little stuffed friends, we have Christopher Robin, voiced by Jack Boulter. Boulter makes Christopher sound a bit more English than past versions, but I didn't mind it. And as our Narrator, we have John Cleese. Cleese doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's him, and it just adds a little something to the film because of that. He sounds super friendly, he's funny, and we can tell who he is, it really does add to the storybook way the film goes. It makes him feel like an uncle or father, he gives us a warm feeling while he tells us the story and it makes us both very happy.

I give the film a 3.5 out of 5. It's a great film for all ages, has great animation, and it even comes with a beautiful short film at the beginning, since the actual film is only one hour and three minutes. Whether you are seven or seventy, Winnie the Pooh will warm your heart and make you feel great.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

How To Put A Good End To A Series

This was a moment many people my age had been either waiting for, or dreading. This was the last installment to the Harry Potter film series, based off the last book of the book series. Harry Potter is a name that will be remembered about as fondly as Frodo Baggins, Captain Ahab, or Quasimodo, although I must admit it is more of a generation thing. Even still, the movie itself proves to be a great way to end the series, giving it's audience just about everything they ask for.

Since Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 featured all of the aimless trekking through the woods, the second part focuses completely on the action. The movie refuses to really pull any punches, starting from about fifteen minutes in with a shocking scene of black-comedy, where a brain dead goblin is burned alive by a dragon. He is only the first one to die in this movie, and the death toll is far from small. Werewolves are disintegrated by a magic force field, death eaters either burn alive or fall to their deaths due to an exploding bridge, and let's just say a CGI snake gives us a scene that just barely evades an R rating.

But the film is more than just an action movie, giving us scenes of raw emotion. The woman I was sitting next to (a good friend of mine) was sobbing at one point, and just to prove I'm not heartless, the same scene made me cry too. I'd also be lying if I forget to mention the film has legitimately scary moments as well. Of course one of those moments was from a bit of symbolism near the end I personally feel could have been toned down a little. Of course, being mostly an action movie, the movie does wrap itself up in a way so you don't feel like you've been sitting down for over two hours, and for this type of movie, that is a very good thing.

Sure, as a big Potter fan, my judgement may not be as fair as someone who is not. But, as a Potter fan, I still recommend the book series more. The movie, like the first part, gets a solid 3 out of 5. It's a bit better than the first part, which is also a good movie, and it gives an end to the series with no major complains on my part.

Tron Legacy

All Logic Will Be Derezzed.

When I first heard of this film, I had a gut feeling it would be one of the most dissapointing films made in 2010. I was right. The first Tron has become a cult classic for very good reasons. The effects (still) look impressive, the story is as interesting as the characters, and it also features one of the most iconic villains seen on screen, even for cult classic standards. The sequel has impressive special effects, and that is all. Sure, there are a few scenes that are fun, but it doesn't make up for the below average plot and nonsense logic.

The villain I mentioned above is named the MCP, The Master Control Program. MCP was sinister, threatening, and had a catchphrase ("End of line") that is commonly qouted to this day. The villain in this film, named Clu, may be a much bigger monster, but is forgettable. Even though he is played by Jeff Bridges, who in 2010 also wonderfully played Rooster Cogburn in True Grit. The only reason people will remember the villain's name is that Clu is also the name of the first character in the first movie who was killed by the MCP. Clu is a genocidal racist with plans to take over the world. It's a generic villain motive, and it isn't looked into very well or really at all, making him a sterotypical villain that should have had some character.

Our hero is Sam Flynn, the son of Jeff Bridges other character Kevin Flynn. Sam is a "rebel" who dropped out of college for no reason, refuses to take control of his compant and instead just toys with the sterotypically evil employees who are taking control until he Sam actually does the smart thing and runs the company. Basically, Sam is the sterotype that we have not seen since the 1980's, and works a lot less now then it did then, instead making him seem like a bland loser who won't ever do the right thing because it's "lame".

Kevin Flynn is not much better. He is basically some kind of Messiah, but does absolutely nothing to stop the evil Clu. The film says early on that Kevin could easily destroy Clu, but at the cost of sacrificing himself. He has nothing to live for, thinking he'll never escape the electronic world or see his son again, and is supposed to be the kind of man who would do anything for the common good, so why he doesn't sacrifice himself makes no sense. Instead of sounding like a wise man and saint, Kevin comes across as a lazy old man who would rather sit down and read a book while millions are being inslaved and slaughtered.

The movie is just bad, and will be forgotten within the next ten years. I give the movie 2 out of 5 stars. It's bland, not thought out, and is nowhere near what the original film was like. Watch the original, and skip the sequel.

True Grit (2010)

Wanted Men Are Always So Hard To Find

I had not truly seen a western film until I went to see this film. Unless you count Blazing Saddles, which apperantly some don't. As such, I did not see the original (this is a remake for those who did not know). Despite my lack of westerns including the original film, I was looking forward to this film for months, the reason being it was the newest Coen Brothers movie. Joel and Ethan Coen have once again created a well put together and thought out film that was worth more of my money than I paid at the cinema. This film is simply entitled: True Grit

The plot is simple, a fourteen year old girl named Mattie ends up losing her father to a lowlife criminal by the name of Tom Chaney. Mattie is played by Hailee Steinfeld while Chaney is protrayed by Josh Brolin. I am very unfamilair with these actors, but I hope to see them in later films after watching them in this one.

Mattie attempts to catch her father's killer and bring him to justice, one way or the other. She hires U.S. Marshal Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn, played wonderfully by Jeff Bridges. Bridges' western accented voice is very rough and has a slur-like quality to it, but is he surprisingly very easy to comprehend. Cogburn is a drunk, a bit violent, and very much a cowboy.

Also looking for Chaney is Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Pronounced La Beef), played by Matt Damon. LaBoeuf informes Mattie that Chaney is a man who goes by multiple aliases and is quilty of killing a Texas politican, and as such he is out to bring him back to Texas to hang from his crimes. Mattie says she will not help LaBoeuf as she wants Chaney to be hanged in her state, as that would mean he would be executed for the crime he commited in that state, the murder of her father. There are times LaBoeuf is slightly unlikable, but it's mostly he is supposed to come off as arrogant and annoying to the others.

The movie is basically a search for Chaney, loaded with wonderful dialogue written by the Coen Bros. While I don't find it as interesting as the dialogue from Fargo (My favorite of theirs and one of my favorite films) it is nothing less than great dialogue that I'm sure will be qouted quite frequently, and sooner than later.

The film earns a solid 4 out of 5 stars from me. Easily one of the best films of 2010, and worth a fair amount of replays on the DVD and Blu-ray.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

A Good Kind of Magic

Doing a movie about the last book in a well beloved series takes a lot of emotion and talent to pull off. The makers of this film knew that, and showed us how much they did. The opening with not-so-little-anymore Hermoine wiping her parents memory catches the heart of the audience rather nicely; it makes us cry, but we know it's all for the best. This series may have started out for children only, but those children have grown up, and so have the films. Blood is shown on screen a fair amount, and in heavy doses. Hermoine nearly gets her throat slit, and we even see a small cut on it, which truly proves how serious the threat to cut her throat truly was.

I do actually like the whole 2-part idea. As this is an adaption, this gives the film a chance to use more things from its source material as well as time to add in whatever they wish. Considering how many fans of the series, including those who love the films, have said that quite a few too many scenes from the book were removed from the film, this is going to please a lot of fans. Also, some of the key moments in the books that were forgotten in the previous films are touched upon in this film, without feeling too forced or confusing.

It's nice to see pratically an encyclopedia of characters, and none of them end up over shadowing the other, excluding the main trio. Ron, Hermoine, and Harry take up most of the screen time, but they all share it quite well, giving each other enough important scenes and times for their character to shine through. Ron even goes away for a good portion of the film.

As for the special effects, I liked them, but was afraid in the beginning that they may go a little too far. Despite that, I was wrong. They were used to their potiental, and not overbaring, which has happens to more films than one can mention, mainstream or otherwise. But the biggest and best effect the movie had was the shadow and paper animation used during the three brothers story. That was animated just beautifully, and it was nice to see such animation again. Shadow animation in general is no longer common, and even if this was just CGI made to look like shadow animation it was still impressive and a little heartwarming to see that style again. I hope to see a full feature length film from the people who animated that sequence some time in the future.

I'll always love the book more, but the movie earns a solid 3 out of 5 stars. It's very good, even if it does drag a little, and sets us up for what's in store for the last movie.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Unfortunate May Be The Key Word



In the modern day where Harry Potter and Twilight are the most talked about book series, it wouldn't surprise me if a fair amount of people have never heard of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events. I have read through the first four books, and plan to finish the rest someday. The books will never leave my mind, as they are wonderful in there own right and deserve a read. The series was popular when I was still a child, enough that a movie was made about the first three books. That in itself speaks one of the problems with this film. I'm not saying that it didn't work, they did actually okay with that concept. If I remember correctly, each book was long enough for it's own individual movie, so I just don't see why they'd make one film for the first three books.
One thing to know about these books is that they are very dark. The main characters ( The Baudeliers) are orphaned in the first few pages from a raging house fire that burns their parents alive. A friend of theirs as well as their parents (who is also the family's banker in charge of their grand wealth) Mr. Poe, must now relocate them to a member of their family. The books are for children, but do give a little warning on the back that the books are depressing, which I'm sure the author knows no kid will care about and read anyway. This is one of my biggest highlights for the series, it takes it's audience very seriously, knowing any child who read it can understand it and take it seriously. Sure, it has it's funny moments, it's altogether a black comedy, but it still treated it's audience with repect, something a few modern children's films could stand to learn.

As for the film, this is true as well as not. It contains a lot of dark elements, but a lot more lighthearted and silly moments than necessary. It's like the the writer's were waving these scenes out at us saying "Ohhhh, look at the funny scenes, don't cry, don't cry." It's very unimpressive, but not unexpected as Nickelodeon did make this movie (along with Paramount).

The villain of this movie and the series is Count Olaf. In the books, Olaf is a cold-blooded killer motivated only by his own greed. But this isn't Scrooge McDuck greed, this is played dead-serious, villainous greed. He murders someone in every book excluding the first, and that's debatable because it's suggested in the books (and outright true in the movie) he started the fire that killed the main characters parents. He wants their fortune, and kills people left and right for it. However, in the movie he is played by Jim Carrey, who adds his normal over the top shtick, Sometimes it's not bad, even funny. Sometimes it's boring, even painful. If Olaf had been a purely comedic villain in the books this would have felt better, but he's not, he's one of the darkest villains I've read in children's books.
I do love the child actors who played the Baudelaire's. Their acting was very convincing, almost as good as the ones in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and child actors rarely get even close to that level. Granted, they were a little older, possibly. The actors in Wonka were all around 13, and I think that kid who played Klaus may have been around that age but Violet must have been 19 or so and Sunny was around 5 or so, which is good since she only had baby talk anyway.

Another great thing about the movie is the visuals. It won an Oscar for best make-up, and as many problems as I see in this movie I do completely agree the movie deserved the Oscar. The make-up is wonderful, as are the rest of the visuals. The make-up and costumes truly captured the dark and gothic world the books gave us.

But really, I can't say I recommend the movie. My rating is a 2.5 out of 5 stars. It did try, and there are aspects I do like about the film, but it just didn' work for me. It may sound sterotypical, but the books were better.

Piranha 3-D

Drowning Is The Least of Their Worries.

For those of you unfamiliar with the original (this is a remake), it will not matter, I did not see that movie either. Apparently it is just a Jaws rip-off. This film however, manages to instead go a different route, as a call-back to the gruesome, cheesy, needlessly 3-D horror films of the 1980's. And it does so without a hitch, keeping myself in stitches, while still scared thanks to good music cues and realistic blood effects, no CG blood here.

The cast is star-studded, although I'll admit I only recognized Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth. The cast does a great job all around. We grow to like the main character Jake (Played by Steven R McQueen, the grandson of the more well-known Steve McQueen) as well as his love interest Kelly, his younger siblings, his mother the sheriff, and her deputy played by Ving Rhames. Rhames also gives the best part of the movie, where he takes a small out-board motor against the piranhas.

The only unlikable characters, are (thankfully) supposed to be unlikable. If you watch this film as say "God, I hate this character" expect them to meet a gruesome and hilarious fate at the hands of the piranhas. These scenes are made all the more funny thanks to the 3-D. Things fly at us in the style that 3-D was meant for in the 1980s horror movie, but in this case it actually works, instead of just making the screen blue and red. 
 
I give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, but raise it to around 3.5 stars if watching in 3-D. There are stupid moments, but not that many. The film knew exactly what is wanted to be, and delivered it quite well.

Cowboys & Aliens

For Once, They Are Not After The Cattle.

Cowboys & Aliens, the title alone puts a visual into the average viewers head. A cheesy science-fiction movie, most likely containing hammy acting and crazy special effects. But while watching the movie, I found myself very invested in the plot and characters, and whenever I laughed, it was from an actual joke instead of a cheesy scene.

The reason I did actually go see the movie was because my all-time favorite actor was in it, Harrison Ford (Raiders of the Lost Ark, A New Hope). Ford plays against character for a change, he is the corrupt and rather violent cattle rancher with the town in his pocket, basically the western version of a Mafia boss. Unlike most western baddies, Ford actually grows over the film, warming up purely do to the fact he is a human at heart, having characters he cares for (his son, who is kidnapped by the aliens) and who care for him (his Native-American worker whose life he saved at a young age).

Due to being a bad guy, Ford is not the lead character, unlike what the trailer would make you believe. Our star is actually Jake Lonergan, played by Daniel Craig (The current James Bond). Jake is the leader of outlaws, but quits after he falls in love with a "working girl". He is kidnapped by the aliens, but escapes, only to lose his memory. While redeemed before the movie starts, you get the feeling Jake would have most likely stayed a thief (possibly still a killer) if not for the memory loss, which makes him spend a fair amount of the movie trying to find who he is. I think this is quite clever of the filmmakers, nearly all of the characters start of the movie as villains or just everyday people. But when the aliens (called demons by our heroes) show up and make it personal, they all go after them to save their loved ones, and end up saving the day for selfish reasons, while still becoming heroic characters.

The movie will be ignored by the film buffs (I say that as a film buff myself) purely because it's a western with aliens. They will say "This could have just been a straight western." I disagree, as I can see the formula working as a straight western, in a way that I can predict the entire plot and would most likely be right in my predictions. But as the movie is, it's very hard to guess what will happen next, and the movie is stronger for it, as it was the most surprising movie I've seen this summer. Nothing wrong with using a formula that will never be old, but doing something very different can lead to great results, and for me the movie did that.

My final verdict: 3.5 out of 5 stars. A great movie, from beginning to end.