The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (5.5)

Peter Jackson and company have traveled back to Middle Earth to bring J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit to the big screen.  With the same director, writers, cinematographer, film editor, production designer, set decorator, musical score director, supervising sound editor, and a handful of actors ALL from the original Lord of the Rings films, are we to expect the same caliber film with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?

Plot:

Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from the Shire, is swept into an adventure with thirteen dwarves who are determined to recapture their homeland, which was stolen by a dragon named Smaug.

Editor’s Note:  I saw the film twice, once in 48 frames per second 3D, and then in regular 2D.  This review is based off the HFR 3D version, since that is how The Hobbit was meant to be viewed.

My Thoughts:

In the wise words of one of my friends, J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit is a nearly unfilmable story.  It is a fairly short book, which is why I instantly questioned Peter Jackson’s decision to make three feature-length films for The Hobbit.  I feared that this would stretch the story far more than it could, and consequently the screenwriters would add unnecessary side plots in order to fill up time.  And, lo and behold, they did just that.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is unnecessarily bloated, with PJ spending too much time exploring side plots that carry little significance.  The editors could have easily cut 30 minutes off the 2 hour, 49 minute runtime, and it would have kept both Tolkien purists and casual movie-goers happy.  This is certainly not a fatal flaw, but it does not stop there.

The most destructive aspect of An Unexpected Journey is Peter Jackson’s direction.  The entire film feels like PJ wanted to create the next Avatar film.  Cheap humor riddles nearly every scene; fanatic, law-defying acts appear everywhere; and bright, over-contrasted landscapes and creatures make the audience feel like they’re in fantasy-land.  Now granted, Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children’s story, but in no way does it read like a cheap fantasy novel.  Tolkien’s writing genius came from his ability to make the surreal appear ever-so real, and PJ and company harnessed this with unparalleled skill with the Lord of the Rings films.  However, PJ utterly abandons this direction in An Unexpected Journey, and the result is less-than-satisfactory.

Is there anything that saves An Unexpected Journey from being a failure?  The 3D version does.  It was meant to be seen in 3D, and, my goodness, what a visual experience.  While the battle scenes appear dull and poorly animated in 2D, they come alive and real in 3D.  I had the most fun watching these battle scenes, along with a splendidly-acted scene between Bilbo and the creature Gollum.  Another saving grace was Martin Freeman’s acting performance as Bilbo Baggins.  He plays the role beautifully, and, on my second viewing, I noticed that any cheesiness that comes from his part can be blamed on PJ and the screenwriters once again.  While Sir Ian McKellen couldn’t quite grasp the role of Gandalf as well as he did a decade ago, he still did a praise-worthy job of playing the old wizard. 

I cannot say the same for the actors playing the 13 dwarves.  Besides a strong performance by Ben Stott as Balin and James Nesbitt as Bofur, the dwarves were poorly acted.  Once again, I blame PJ for this, because these dwarves were poorly casted in the first place.  It is an unfortunate and entirely avoidable problem that presents itself most vividly in the opening scenes in Bilbo’s hobbit-hole.  

I never, ever thought I would want it, but here I am wishing that Peter Jackson did not direct An Unexpected Journey.  I had fun watching it in 3D, but the direction, casting, and writing were, while not terrible, pretty disappointing.  I hope for a day in the distant future when another director decides to film the Hobbit in one, maybe two films, pull the script directly from the book, and create a realism to The Hobbit that would launch the film above the masses of big-budget fantasy movies overcrowding the film industry.

Rating: 5.5/10

Life Of Pi (8.5/10)

Critically acclaimed director Ang Lee, (Sense and Sensibility, Brokeback Mountain, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) gathers together a relatively unknown cast of actors for the film adaption of the book "Life of Pi".  This book had previously been dubbed as the "impossible" novel to film, but was Ang Lee able to prove that assumption wrong?

Plot:
Pi Patel, a young boy who survives a disaster at sea, is forced to survive in a small boat with the only company being a hungry, wild bengal tiger.

My Thoughts:
I'm going to try to be systematic in this review, with each paragraph covering a major area of filmmaking and how well it was done in Life of Pi.  First and foremost is the script/story.  The Life of Pi is a fictional tale, but it doesn't feel like one at all.  The story is gripping, and plot holes are non-existent.  I couldn't help but wish for a little more action whilst Pi Patel was on the lifeboat, but the energy between Pi and the tiger was plenty enough to keep the story afloat, (<--see what I did there:)  And just a side-note, there is a lovely plot twist at the end that will have you and your friends debating the ending for quite some time.

Acting was great with previously unknown lead actor Suraj Sharma dominating most of the screen time alongside the bengal tiger (named Richard Parker).  Sharma was no Tom Hanks from Cast Away, but he definitely held his own in a promising debut performance.  Irrfan Khan, playing the adult Pi Patel, was my favorite performance of the movie.  He has an absolutely incredible one-liner near the end of the film that has to be my favorite line I've heard in 2012, (barely taking the title away from the the "limitless ocean" line in Cloud Atlas, spoken by Jim Sturgess.)

Khan's one-liner pertained to the main theme of the story, religion.  What was interesting about the Life of Pi story was that instead of debating the overdone Hollywood theme of, "Is there a God?", it simply accepted that there was a God, and then asked the question, "which story of God is the real one?"  I really, really enjoyed the uniqueness of this theme, and I thought it was incredibly well done.  However, Pi falters when it dabbles in other themes that were obvious to a survival story, such as the power of starvation and relationships.  It was a little unnecessary, and I would much rather have them focus in on just that one theme of religion.  All the same, I was overall satisfied with the way they handled the themes in the film.

I don't think I need to say anything about the cinematic experience, but gosh I can't help myself.  Wow, was it spectacular.  It's the reason this film was made, it's the focus, and its beautiful.  It's not even, how you say "Artsy."  It's not just the cinema geeks that can appreciate it; everyone can love the beauty of this film.  It shows you earth at it's most magnificent, and I can almost hear Ang Lee saying through the cinema, "Look at what you're missing when you busily go through your lives.  Look at the beauty this world has to offer."  It's so mesmerizing, and totally worth the theater ticket just for the cinematic experience.  One shot, when Pi is under water watching a boat sink to the depths, brought tears to my eyes.

Life of Pi is a fantastic film.  There was no one area where it failed to inspire.  I had a few minor issues with the film in different aspects; with the two biggest being the lack of engaging action while on the lifeboat, and the choice to not focus on just the religion theme.  There are many stories that can pull off multiple themes, but for Life of Pi, which is very linear, is stretches the story a bit thin.  However, the minor details do not diminish from the story too much, and once again, the focus here is not the story; it is the beautiful world in which the story is told.

Rating:  8.5/10

Lincoln (7.5)

Honest Abe is on the big screen twice this year, but this time around he's not slaying any vampires.  Instead, he is played by one of the most infamous actors in hollywood today, the glorified Daniel Day Lewis. With a host of other superb actors all under the direction of Steven Spielberg, can this movie possibly go wrong?

Plot:  
Set during the the last few months of Abraham Lincoln's life as president of the United States, the story follows Lincoln's incredible struggle to free American slaves through passing the 13th amendment while trying to end a civil war. 

My Thoughts:
Until this movie, I have never had the chance to see Daniel Day Lewis act on the big screen.  Now that I have, it's truly unforgettable.  Lewis is one of, if not the most dedicated actor in hollywood; totally obsessed with his roles in film.  He is nothing short of captivating; so (seemingly) effortlessly becoming the 16th President of the United States, embodying all of his strengths, weaknesses, struggles, joys, and trials.  It is a masterpiece, as is Tommy Lee Jones performance as Thaddeus Stevens.  Jones was almost as equally moving, and it was a shame the two characters only shared one scene, (but what a great scene it was.)

Acting across the board was easily the best part of this movie.  I'll go ahead and list a few names: Sally Field, David Strathairn, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, Lee Pace, Tim Blake Nelson, and John Hawkes all were incredible.  I really believe that casting is Spielberg's greatest ability in filmmaking.  I can't think of anyone else that can cast actors for their roles better then he can.

The next best aspect of Lincoln was cinematography.  The director of cinematography was Janusz Kaminski, who is quite literally the best.  He did Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, The Terminal, Catch Me If You Can, etc, but even with all those under his belt, I dare say Lincoln was possibly his best work.  One shot in particular, in which President Lincoln walks away after dictating a letter to two young scribes, had me tearing up.  This was definitely my favorite scene in the whole movie.

So, why didn't I love the movie?  That's right, I sure didn't.  I liked the film, but I didn't love it.  After all, all the "technical" stuff was flawless; perfect acting, beautiful cinematography, no plot holes, (It's history so, that's pretty easy), and great music.  So what was the problem?  

Direction.  The overall direction of the film just did not grip me.  Lots, lots, lots of monologues that, while fun explorations of Daniel Day Lewis's acting talents, bored the progression.  Too much political bickering that, while gripping during the House of Representative debates, was pretty boring.  And that's at least 95% of the film: talking.  Not just talking, but talking about the exact same problem; how to end the war and slavery at the same time.  Watch the first half of the trailer below; the dialogue you hear there is all you'll hear for about two hours.

So in conclusion, you're left with a film that has incredible actors saying the same thing and talking about the same thing...it needed to go somewhere.  But instead, scriptwriter Tony Kushner filled the time with political arguments between political figures, saying the same quotes akin to, "Focus on ending the war, not slaves!",  "You can't have it both ways!", "Slaves don't deserve to be free!" etc, etc.  However, when the movie shined was when Tommy Lee Jones or Daniel Day Lewis were in the center of the screen, completely captivating the audience with their passionate performances.

Rating: 7.5/10

Cloud Atlas (7/10)

Cloud Atlas, based off the novel of the same name by David Mitchell, is an epic of a story spanning over a millennium of time, capturing the lives of dozens of characters all played by only a handful of actors.  Three directors, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski, and Lana Wachowski, (formally Larry Wachowski before a sex change) took on the task of telling this daring story.  Were they able to make such a great story work on the big screen?

Plot:  
This movie is simply too big to try and lay out the plot.  But in a nutshell, Cloud Atlas is a deep exploration of how all of our lives are interconnected and impacted by our actions...actions that transcend lifetimes and shape souls.

My Thoughts:

There are 13 main actors playing 68, (yes, sixty-eight,) different characters. Let that wash over you for a second.  But its only impressive if it works, right? Well it does work!  It really did!  I never once lost which character was which, even though multiple actors played as many as 7 different characters.

There was, however, one big problem with the character-switching.  Switching characters between ethnicities, which many main actors do in Cloud Atlas, did not work.  Jim Sturgess and Hugo Weaving, for example, looked downright silly as Asians, and by the same token, Doona Bae was horribly unconvincing as a Caucasian.  I understand the obvious message the directors were trying to convey here, but for cinematic purposes it really hindered the "seriousness" of the film.

With six stories spanning over six time-periods, I was really surprised that I never once got lost with any of the plots.  That fact alone I found to be a massive success.  All of the stories are engaging, which I credit the author David Mitchell for.  The acting was great across the board, with the standouts being Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, (of course), Jim Sturgess, and Jim Broadbent.  I'll also give a shout out to Ben Whishaw for doing an absolutely superb job of narrating his well-written monologues.  And I think this goes without saying: Cloud Atlas will be one of, if not the most beautiful, awe-inspiring cinematic experience of the year.  You only need to watch the trailer to figure that out.

It's going to take at least 4 or 5 viewings to catch all the underlying, interweaving themes running through each story.  It was masterfully done.  However, there are many times when Cloud Atlas begins to feel like Lana Wachowski's film.  She preaches way too much, and its obvious.  She(he), has a massive chip on her shoulder about the transgender thing, (go watch some interviews, it's very annoying) and she vents it all out in Cloud Atlas.  It has a very negative impact on the film as a whole, and I couldn't stop wishing she(he) was not a part of the filming process.

There are two other negatives in Cloud Atlas that bother me.  One was the musical score.  Honestly, it was just bad, (besides the "theme" song heard at the beginning of the trailer).  Too dramatic where it didn't need to be and very misleading at times, the score intervened with the film much more then progressed it.  

The other is uselessly explicit sex scenes.  One in particular was absolutely over the top, and this new Hollywood trend of "slipping in" women's bare breasts into the frame was just everywhere.  Also note that there is a very, very much in love gay couple that, while are not sexually explicit on screen, spend a good deal amount of time talking about how much they adamantly love each other, and it's shown in a very positive light.  All of this once again, feels very much driven by Lana Wachowski.

Never in cinema has anyone ever seen anything like Cloud Atlas.  Whether you hate it or love it, that's one thing I think all of us can agree on.  This story is just, new.  It is a completely original, mind-bending story.  For this reason alone, you should definitely see this film.  All the same, I can't help feeling like Cloud Atlas was held back by Lana's insistence to preach her grudges with society in uncalled-for, sometimes overly-explicit ways.

Rating:  7/10

Lawless (7/10)

Lawless is an adaption of the book "The Wettest Country in the World" which tells the story of the infamous Bondurant brothers; bootleggers during the prohibition era.  The writer of the original novel, Matt Bondurant, (grandchild of Jack Bondurant, the youngest of the three), is also on the script-writing team alongside the musician Nick Cave.  All of this is helmed by director John Hillcoat, who directed The Road; one of my favorite films of 2009.  This is indeed a odd combination of leaders, but are they able to pull it off?

Plot:
Set during the prohibition era, the Bondurant brothers are known as the toughest and best bootleggers in Franklin County, Virginia.  Their authority is challenged when crooked special deputy Charles Rakes wants in on their profits.  As fellow bootleggers begin to fold to Rakes' demands and pressure begins to mount, Jack Bondurant (Shia LaBeouf) must prove he can lead his brother's operation while still trying to win the heart of the local pastor's daughter Bertha (Mia Wasikowska).

My Thoughts:
Check out this cast: Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Jason Clarke, Guy Pearce, Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain, and Mia Wasikowska.  ....Yeah, my jaw was on the floor too.  This is the best lineup of actors since Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy of last year.  But with such a huge cast, does each character get to flourish or do some characters get overwhelmed?

Unfortunately, it is the latter.  Some performances were fantastic and made you care about their character's outcome, such as Tom Hardy, (Forest Bondurant) Jessica Chastain, (Maggie) and especially Guy Pearce as the oh-so-hateable villain Charles Rakes.  However, the leads Shia LaBeouf, (Jack Bondurant) and Mia Wasikowska (Bertha) fall incredibly flat and predictable.  I found myself bored with the leads and focusing in on the side characters of the story.  And just a side-note, Gary Oldman's character gets a whole 2 minutes of screen time, which was, albeit sufficient for his role, very disappointing considering his immense acting talent.

The plot line and script are predictable, as are most things coming out of hollywood these days.  But in the case of Lawless, that did not make it any less fun.  It's a genuinely addicting, interesting story set in one of the most unique, adventurous time periods of American history.  Worth mentioning is that there are no plot holes that I could find, which always puts a movie script above the rest.

Also, a word of warning; This movie is horribly violent.  The camera spares the audience nothing, "treating" us to torture-style violence and raising the volume of those lovely knife-slitting, skin-burning, blood-curdling sounds and screams.  There is also unnecessary nudity that has no reason to be there besides shock-effect, which is disappointing.

In conclusion, Lawless is a film that set out to tell a really good story.  And it did.  It's fun, it's engaging, and it'll make you laugh, squeal, and cheer all at the right times.  However, it is definitely bogged down by a predictable lead plot that was unenthusiastically performed, and that darn nudity that has no place here.  But if you're willing to look over the shoulder of Shia and Mia's characters, you'll see a world blossoming with interesting characters and intriguing story lines that lead to a climatic finish that had me on the edge of my seat.

RATING: 7/10

Take Shelter (9/10)

Take Shelter is written and directed by Jeff Nichols, who has only directed three films including this one.  All three films have starred his favorite actor Michael Shannon, who takes the lead part in Take Shelter. The cast also includes the very impressive Jessica Chastain and Shea Whigham.

Plot:  

Curtis (Shannon) is suddenly plagued by apocalyptic visions, and, fearing for his sanity, begins to earnestly build a storm shelter in his backyard.  His obsessive devotion begins to tear apart his family, and Curtis questions whether he should shelter his family from the upcoming storms or himself.

My Thoughts:

From the opening scene to the closing, Nichols envelops the movie in a shroud of dread, disease, unsettling paranoia that's so compelling and yet, subtle enough to where you don't even notice that you're as afraid as Curtis, (Michael Shannon).  The cinematography is slow-paced and mellow, and the coloring is subtle and and fairly dulled, which gave the film an eerie feel, as if something isn't quite right the whole time.  Also, quick shout out to the original soundtrack written by David Wingo.  The theme song for this film, (which you hear in the trailer below) so perfectly captures and enhances the mood of the film.

What that subtle art direction did was allow the viewer to focus heavily on the acting performances.  And my gosh, were they good.  Michael Shannon's performance as a normal man who hopelessly watches his whole life and mind unravel is riveting to say the least.  He proves to us that there is no greater terror then the fear of oneself, and the viewer is forced to watch as this terror slowly rips him apart.  Its horrifyingly convincing, but not too dark to where it felt self-indulgent.  Shannon's counterpart, Jessica Chastain, plays the role of a confused, frustrated, scared, yet loving and supportive wife of Curtis.  She is as equally powerful as Shannon, with her character representing love, hope, and faith that Curtis so desperately needs.

I usually don't write about this topic in my reviews, but I will for Take Shelter.  That topic is the underlying themes of the movie.  The reason I don't usually write about these is that I believe it's very important for the viewer to discover them on their own.  And if they don't, then they weren't meant to find them.  That's the beauty of storytelling; letting the listener/viewer/reader discover for themselves how the story touches their lives and what they want to take away form it.  I will say though, for Take Shelter, that the themes are fairly easy to find and beautifully interwoven into each scene.  There's fear vs hope, trust vs stubbornness, reality vs fantasy, sanity vs insanity, love vs addition/obsession...... There's a whole masterpiece lying just underneath the surface that deserves to be discovered and appreciated.

The ending of the film, (about 20 minutes) is surprisingly, yet quite satisfyingly conventional.  It truly saved this film from falling into the overflowing bin of "too-dark" films.  I absolutely loved it, because it allows the viewer to hope and trust, and yet never once losing that overarching feeling of unease. In fact, I'll go ahead and say that this film might be the best film of the first half of 2012.  It is, I warn, a slow-paced film, but that's the point.  Nichols forces the viewer to watch our lovable lead character ever-so-slowly fall into madness (or is he?).  I highly recommend this film for anyone that can enjoy a slow-paced film for the sake of an incredible story.

Note:  I recognize this film was released in theatrically in 2011.  But wide-spread release was not available until 2012 when it went to DVD, so I decided to rank it in the films for 2012, as I've seen that most critics are doing the same.

Rating:  9/10

The Dark Knight Rises (6.5/10)

Well, here it is.  The movie event of the year.  The Dark Knight Rises is the closing film of the batman epic trilogy headed by director Christopher Nolan, starring so many famous actors I can't even begin to list.  Nolan set the bar extremely high with The Dark Knight, the second installment of the batman series.  Does The Dark Knight Rises live up to Nolan's last batman film?

Plot:
Set eight years after the end of The Dark Knight, Gotham is in a time of peace.   That is, until Bane comes along to shake things up a bit.  Bruce Wayne, (aka Batman) feels compelled to come back and aid Gotham against this new villain, even though Gotham still blames him for the death of Harvey Dent.

My Thoughts:

[There are NO SPOILERS.]

For this review, I'm just going to dive right into the movie, because there is so much to talk about. First off, the plot.  The plot line stays pretty standard; Batman vs. Villain with Gotham playing the part of the damsel-in-distress.  I don't have a problem with that, but I do take issue with how it was executed.  The first thing you'll notice, is how easy everything is for Bane.  Bane has an ultimate goal that I won't give away in this review, but he ends up getting just about everything he wants, (and he wants a whole lot), with practically no opposition.  Now don't get me wrong, there is a (ridiculously) huge police force out to stop him...they just never do anything. And just a side-note: Bane, like Joker, uses explosives to strike fear in the hearts of Gotham residents.  And although both cases allow for an unrealistic amount of planted bombs, there is one major scene with Bane that involves so many timed explosives it was laughable.  Nolan pulled it off with the Joker, but the excitement and authenticity of it was lost with Bane.
The main problem with the plot, though, is that it is utterly predictable.  The obvious big question going into this film is, "Does Batman die?"  Nolan practically answers that question 20 minutes into the film, making the ending quite underwhelming.  There is also a "huge" plot twist that I, and everyone with me during the movie, easily predicted.  It didn't need to be that easy, and it really ruined the hugeness of the finale for me. 

The script, thank God, was actually almost hole-less.  TDKR ties up every lose end well, until the end. Nolan leaves us hanging with one massive question, even though this is the ending of the trilogy.  You can answer it for yourself, but I found it to be quite unsatisfying, very unlike his masterful closing scene in Inception, (the endlessly-spinning top...or is it?!)

The acting performances were the best part of the movie.  Christian Bale has a very uncharacteristically bad scene early on, but the rest of his character development is quite good.  Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, and Marion Cotillard all did very well.  But the star of show is Michael Caine.  His performance as Alfred the butler comes to a climatic high in TDKR, and his passionate love and respect for the Wayne family is so incredibly well acted he had me nearly in tears by the end.  The only bad performance I can note was Matthew Modine's as Foley.  He was horribly unbelievable, and Nolan gave him way too much screen time and Morgan Freeman/Michael Caine way too little.

I think the main problem I had with this film is that I. guessed. everything.  And I wasn't even trying; I was just casually watching the movie knowing how every scene was going to end.  This made it a very underwhelming, unimpressive viewing experience for me.  This was not the case during The Dark Knight, where Nolan has you on the edge of your seat wondering what the Joker was going to do next.  Bane's plans/moves are predictable. Batman's progression is predictable.  The plot twists are predictable.  And every action scene in the finale, (which is about 1/3 of the movie, and what every superhero movie rides on) was predictable. I leaned back comfortably and enjoyed the movie...but that's not what I wanted.  I wanted to be on the edge of my seat, and unfortunately, Nolan didn't give me that.

Rating:  6.5/10

Brave (7/10)

Pixar's latest animated feature film, Brave, stars a female for the lead for the first time in their history.  Pixar's list of achievements is arguably the greatest in the film industry, winning 26 Academy awards and raking in over 7 billion dollars between it's 13 produced films.  Does Brave live up to the standards we have come to expect from Pixar's produced movies?

Plot:
Set during a rugged and mythical time, Merida, an aspiring archer and impetuous daughter of royalty, is pushed by her mother Elinor to be the perfect princess.  However, Merida has different life goals then the ones she was born into, which leads her to make a disastrous decision that, unless she can make it right, will destroy her entire kingdom as she knows it.

My Thoughts:
I love Pixar.  How can you not?  They've done everything from Toy Story to Monsters Inc. to Finding Nemo to Ratatouille, (a personal favorite) to Up...the list goes on.  I have adored every movie they produce, with the two exceptions being Cars and Cars 2. So with that in mind, I went into Brave hoping for yet another gem to add to my Pixar movie collection.  Did it deliver?

Mostly, yes.  Brave, first and foremost, was hilarious.  I'm such a sucker for slapstick humor, and this movie is filled with it. I laughed way too much for my own good, and, now that I think about it, much more so then the film probably deserved.  If you found yourself laughing hysterically to Monster's Inc., then you'll love the humor here too.  But, like all movies, if you go into Brave determined to never laugh, then you won't.  I highly recommend going into this film with a desire to laugh and enjoy it...because you will.

The setting strongly reminds you of How To Train Your Dragon, but Brave just so happens to have the visual creative power of Pixar.  Brave's graphics and animation are flawlessly beautiful, like most Pixar films.  Merida's bright red hair will continually grab your attention throughout the film all at the right times, and the landscape was visually absorbing to say the least.

The storyline is the weakest part of the movie, and unfortunately one of the weakest plots from Pixar yet. It is utterly unoriginal...I'm not picky at all when it comes to the plots of animated movies, but this one was notably disappointing.  The focus is on the mother/daughter relationship between Elinor and Merida, which was fairly well developed.  But the overall storyline could have been much more creative and engrossing, and a plot twist or two would have been nice. (Basically, it's no Toy Story or Finding Nemo.) 

I'm happy to say that Brave is, while certainly not Pixar's greatest creation, a good addition to their line of feature films.  I was definitely disappointed in the (seemingly) lack of work that went into the script, but Brave's fun, clean atmosphere, incredible animation, and (warning: bias) well done humor still make Brave a worth-while venture.

Rating: 7/10

Ted (6/10)

Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the animated comedy show Family Guy, directs his first full-length movie starring Mark Walberg, Mila Kunis, and of course, himself as the voice of Ted, the teddy bear.  MacFarlane, through the show Family Guy, created an impressively unique blend of comedy for himself that has proven to strike a chord with the American audience. With Ted, he hopes to strike that same chord with a major motion picture.

Plot:

John Bennett (Walberg) made a wish that his newly acquired teddy bear, creatively named Ted, would come to life.  Well, it did.   Fast forward 20 years, and John and Ted are still the best of friends.  But when that friendship is tested by John's girlfriend Lori (Kunis), John has to act before both Ted and Lori lose faith in him.


My Thoughts:
It was quite easy to predict that Ted would watch like a Family Guy episode.  What with MacFarlane directing, writing, and voicing, plus bringing along Mila Kunis, (who has been the voice of a lead character on Family guy for over 10 years) and Jessica Barth, (another voice on Family Guy), there wasn't much else to think.


I was right.  It feels exactly like a family guy episode, all the way down to the random flashbacks and constant jokes at other random celebrities' expenses. There are countless verbal jabs (jokes?) that, while downright disrespectful at times and insulting at the best of times, are still hilarious.  MacFarlane has way too much fun making fun of others, but at least he does it incredibly well in both Family Guy and here in Ted.  Many of the jokes written in the script had me crying with laughter.


But that's when MacFarlane's at his best.  When he loses his unique comedic touch, he resorts to the same raunchy, crass, sexual, uncreative "humor" that we've already seen in a million other R rated comedies.  It's really not that funny to see how many ways you can go about saying something sexual in a perverted way or how many ways you can phrase "let's smoke weed" or "let's get wasted." Unfortunately, Ted is smothered in this type of perverted humor that's designed to make the audience gasp "I can't believe he just said that!" and then, consequently, laugh away the shock and call it humor.


The storyline is blatantly cliche, which I actually applaud.  It's very much obvious that MacFarlane did this on purpose, maybe even to make fun of that style of movie.  The music score of the movie is ridiculous and yet, well done, almost like you're watching the finale of the most dramatic, crappy soap opera on tv.  And finally, the acting performances of Mila Kunis and Mark Walberg were pretty good.  I can't praise their roles too highly because they were very simple roles to act, but at least neither of them were poor performances.


All of this movie is designed to never let the audience stop laughing.  But I did stop.  A lot.  I don't laugh at vulgar, crass lines simply because that's what they are, and there's a ton of those moments in Ted.  The times when Ted shines are the moments when MacFarlane (wisely) relies on his well-used, but still hilarious blend of comedy.  When it falls short, is when he tries anything else.

Rating: 6/10

Prometheus (5/10)

Ridley Scott is back with a kind-of-but-not-really prequel to his first major hollywood success, Alien. But this time, he has state of the art CGI to help him out while exploring the limitless world of sci-fi.  Also aiding Scott’s venture are the acting talents of Noomi Repace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce, and the writing talent of the Lost TV show writer Damon Lindelof.

Plot:  
A team of scientists journey through the universe on the spaceship "Prometheus" on a voyage to investigate Alien life forms. The team of scientists becomes stranded on an Alien world, and as they struggle to survive it becomes clear that the horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of mankind. (copied from IMDb)

My Thoughts:

Critically, summer blockbusters usually get terrible reviews because they are generally tailored for summer moviegoers who just want popcorn flicks that demand little to no critical thinking from the audience.  However, as I have been following the progression of Prometheus, I started to believe this film would be much more.  And then when the MPAA slapped a R rating on it and Ridley Scott didn’t dispute it, I knew this film had serious potential.  But did it deliver?

Kind of. 
Prometheus was both very impressive and yet, quite disappointing.  Let me first highlight the positives.
First off, the visuals were nothing short of stunning.  The CGI work should easily be some of the best work American audiences will witness all year.  Some of the shots of space were literally breathtaking.  Also, Ridley Scott certainly delivered in creating a freakishly tense, horrific atmosphere.*  The same subtle intensity that was so masterfully done in Alien over 30 years ago is revived to an even greater scale in Prometheus.  Also, Noomi Repace and Michael Fassbender’s acting performances were superb, with Fassbender being the standout.  He has had an absolutely incredible past two years of acting performances, and his role as an emotionless robot in Prometheus continues his good streak.

Now for the negatives.  My main issue falls on the script.  The plot creates holes in itself that it never fills, and other moments are just so silly and unnecessary it hurts.  The characters in the film, who are on an incredibly important and expensive scientific quest, are casted as horribly inept and have the decision-making ability of attractive teenagers in a cheesy horror movie; (arguably mentally retarded.)  The script also includes pointless shots of barely-clothed women, and writes in ALCOHOL on a scientific space ship.  I mean really?  Who would spend one trillion dollars on a spaceship and then give the scientists a lifetime supply of alcohol and tobacco.  These are just a few among many, many things I take issue with.  I don’t want to underplay how badly sloppy script writing hurt this film; it nearly destroyed it. And acting-wise, Logan Marshall-Green’s performance was laughable, and Charlize Theron, who I am a huge fan of, unfortunately way overacted her role.

Where does that land us, then?  A movie with high ambitions that was undone by lousy script writing.  But not entirely undone.  Prometheus asks huge, huge questions about the meaning of life that it purposefully never answers.  Some are going to love this, while others will hate it.  But along that journey, the viewer is forced to witness unrealistically dumb characters do even dumber things in a horrifically gorgeous, breathtaking alien world.

Rating: 5/10

*Random side note:  If you are planning to watch this movie, which I do recommend, notice the absence of the color red.  Its a weird thing I picked up on...I’m not sure the reasons why Ridley Scott did this but I’m pretty sure the color red is seen only twice in the entire film. Food for thought.

Dark Shadows (2/10)

Here's a shocker for you: Tim Burton casts Johnny Depp as the lead in his latest film once again!!  Cause this pairing had never happened before..... oh wait.  Dark Shadows marks the EIGHTH time these two have collaborated to make a movie, which, in my humble opinion, is about 5 times too many, (the only gems these guys have ever made together were Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hallow, and Sweeny Todd.  An argument can be made for Ed Wood but...eh.)
Dark Shadows is based off of a soap opera of the same name that was hugely popular during the late 60's, but, other then keeping the character names and general background, Burton's version takes a new direction.

Plot:
Barnabas Collins was the son of Joshua and Naomi, who, in 1792, immigrated their family to America where they established an extremely successful fishing industry in the city of Collinsport, Maine.  But, after breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard, who just so happens to be a powerful witch, Angelique turns him into a vampire and buries him alive.  Exactly two centuries later, after Barnabas is inadvertently freed from his coffin, he discovers his family legacy has been tarnished, and that his surviving Collins relatives are threatened by the same witch that cursed him 200 years ago.

My Thoughts:
I have a question for Tim Burton: um, why?  The vampire, twilight-ish hype died a year ago, and there wasn't much potential in it anyway.  This movie watches like a Tim Burton twist on the Twilight series,  but he's doing so by knocking off another TV show with no relation to Twilight.

But okay, let me be honest here.  I'm not a Tim Burton fan.  At all.
Burton discovered through Edward Scissorhands that he struck a chord with American audiences by selling dark...really dark, stories.  But unfortunately, he's almost entirely abandoned writing original stories.  Let me repeat: He hasn't written a single original story for a major motion picture since The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993).  (Corpse Bride [2005] was technically co-written by Burton but the whole thing is based off of a russian folk tale...which he didn't write.)  I find that pretty sad, but when you add the fact that Burton has marketed himself as a dark storyteller, that just makes it pathetic.

We find this same issue here in Dark Shadows.  There is, unfortunately once again, nothing in this film I can praise that Tim Burton had direct impact on.  However, there is one area of this film that deserves praise, and that is, of course, the always-impressive acting performance by Johnny Depp.  Even when Depp is handed the worst of scripts, and Johnny has a bit of a tendency to take those scripts, he excels beyond expectation.  Depp makes his character, Barnabas Collins, very much real.  A real human being born and raised as such, suddenly trapped in the body and chemical makeup of a vampire, and longing for love, respect, and grace.  He's able to create the depth of his character and simultaneously focus on a (well done) comedic performance, albeit dark comedy.  Anyone that has seen two or more films starring Johnny Depp cannot deny his ability to "become" the character he plays.  And this talent is once again on display here in Dark Shadows.  I can definitely say with confidence Dark Shadows would be in contention for one of the worst movies of the year if it wasn't for Depp.

In summery, if you are Johnny Depp-obsessed, (which is a pretty good obsession to have) I'd go ahead and see this movie just for his performance.  Even then, I'd wait for rental.  But for the rest of you, I'd pass on this one.  Flimsy script that implodes upon itself as the film progresses, (and the last 20 minutes leave you questioning how this film ever made theaters), mediocre acting from everyone besides Depp and Jackie Haley, (he plays the Collins family butler and is the funniest character in the movie), lazy cinematography and notably poor soundtrack.

I'm just waiting on the day when Burton will actually write something incredible once again, but with every passing release by him, I lose a little bit more hope.

Rating: 2/10

Stake Land (7/10)

Here's something you don't see everyday: an indie movie as the highest critically rated horror movie of the year, and yet still people don't know about it.  Yes, Stake Land was the highest rated horror film of 2011, according to Rotten Tomatoes, (For the record, Stake Land was originally released in the UK in 2010, but didn't show in America until April 2011.)  It reunites director Jim Mickle and actor Nick Demici for their second horror film together after creating the cult favorite Mulberry St, but this time brings in supporting actress Danielle Harris, an expert at horror films with a two-decade long list of horror movie appearances, and Gossip Girl actor Connor Paolo for the lead.

Plot:
Everything seemed to go wrong at once.  America has a political and economical collapse, and quickly after a vampire/zombie-like disease epidemic sweeps the nation, leaving no hope for any kind of social structure.  While the nation is in shambles, a man known as Mister, (Nick Demici) takes a boy named Martin (Connor Paolo) under his guidance and protection as they travel north for a land known as "New Eden," where, according to rumor, there is safety.

My Thoughts:
If you were like me, I read the plot and the words "I Am Legend" kept ringing through my ears.  And in some ways, it is similar to the recent I Am Legend remake, but certainly not a copy.  Stake Land takes the intense scenes from I Am Legend and puts them in the landscape of The Road.
Yeah, that's a good mix.

The movie opens with one of the more disturbingly violent scenes I've ever seen, but it sets a false mood.  The violence rarely picks back up to that level of brutality, and instead the movie focuses much more on the feel and atmosphere of the broken world rather then gore or "jump scenes."  In fact, the movie almost entirely avoids jump scenes altogether, which you have no idea how much I appreciate.

The focus of the film is the relationship between Mister and Martin, and Martin maturing from boy to man.  Yes, that's also pretty cliche, but at least they do it very well; it's perfectly paced and well-acted.  However, there's a side-note that sets this movie apart.  Jim Mickle looked at a vampire-ridden, decimated world and dared asked "Where would religion be?" Religion plays a steady role in the film, and not a very positive role at that. Mickle very craftily slides a question into our brains as we watch Stake Land; "What's more dangerous?  The monsters created by disease or the monsters created by religious beliefs?"  You're left to answer that on your own.

Stake Land was an incredibly low-budget film, but besides one scene with a racing car, you can't really tell.  The sets and locations for the film were very well done, and, once again, create a beautifully scared landscape and atmosphere.  My one real disappointment with this movie was the last 15 minutes.  The ending feels very rushed and undeveloped to me; there was certainly more potential there.  But all in all, Stake Land is a fantastic film that took an overused genre and brought it back to life again.

Highly recommend for anyone who can handle some violence and gore and yet, enjoy a movie that isn't overloaded with both.

Rating: 7/10

The Trip (8/10)

Well, unless you're a avid follower of the indie movie scene and from England, I bet you haven't heard of this one.  Some American readers might recognize Steve Coogan from big budget films such as Tropic Thunder and The Other Guys, but neither men have had any lead roles in American-produced films.  And that's about it for recognizable names or titles associated with The Trip as far as the American audience is concerned.


Plot:
This film documents Coogan and Brydon, both playing themselves, on a week-long tour of England's finest restaurants hosted by The Observer magazine.  Steve was originally offered the trip and planned to take his girlfriend, but after she drops the trip last minute, Steve is forced to take his long-time, yet fairly distant friend Rob.


My Thoughts:
Since the film's plot is literally roaming around England for a week sampling food from exclusive restaurants, there really isn't much going on.  The focus here is obviously the friendship of Steve and Rob.


Steve and Rob's interactions, which are virtually the entire film, are very entertaining, and, I must admit, get much better as the film goes on.  It is a little slow at the beginning, but once they are a day or two into their week-long trip, their interactions are just brilliant.  They will impress you, make you laugh, switch to deep topics, then give smart insights on the life of fame and enduring the mid-life crisis all in a very real way, as if you're sitting in the back seat of their (pricy) Range Rover roaming the hills of northern England with them.  I had never seen a film like it before.


There is a lot about this film that I respect, specifically in its uniqueness and unconventional method of movie-making.  First off, there was NO script.  As far as we know, at least.  About 90% of the movie is witty, entertaining, yet very real dialogue between Steve and Rob that was entirely improve. The second aspect that I admire, is that both actors are playing as themselves, but exaggerated forms of themselves, (that'd be kinda weird to do, wouldn't it?)  Steve is a hurting man that's desperately holding onto an over-sized ego, even when all of his life situations at present do not justify one.  He vents these feelings with a very negative, low tolerance attitude towards Rob.  Rob, in contrast, plays a slightly socially awkward, yet happy man who loves his life, with a steady family and decent income.  Both of their characters are truly them with their own personality, but with fictional life situations that both Steve and Rob let influence their natural character.  Not very many actors have attempted something like that, and Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon not only attempted it, but they did it extremely well.


Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this charming film, and would recommend it to anyone looking for something a little different, yet still wants a good laugh and an occasional deep thought.

Rating:  8/10