Kane20 Reviews

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Not as good as the first, but still a worthy sequel

[9/10 · 10 July 2014]

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

I missed the theatrical release of the first How to Train Your Dragon film in 2010, but I eventually saw it on DVD, and I loved it. It has since become one of my favorite animated films, and one of my all-time favorite films in general, and, in my opinion, it is a completely flawless film. So, naturally, I was a bit apprehensive when I found out that they were going to make a sequel. Not so surprisingly, I didn't think How to Train Your Dragon 2 was as good as its predecessor, but it is still a good movie.

The film is set five years after the events of the first film. Instead of killing dragons, the Vikings of Berk now welcome dragons into their village. The chief, Stoick the Vast, plans to retire soon and have his son, Hiccup (now twenty years old), take his place as chief, and even Hiccup's girlfriend, Astrid, thinks he has great potential for the job­. Hiccup, however, prefers flying around with his dragon Toothless and mapping new lands, and is rather averse to his father's wishes. One day while out exploring, Hiccup comes across a group of dragon catchers, who work for an evil warlord, Drago, who wants to assemble a dragon army. Hiccup, against his fathers orders, sets off to try and peacefully reason with Drago, but is waylaid by the mysterious Dragon Rider, Valka (voiced by Cate Blanchett), who turns out to be Hiccup's thought-to-be-long-dead mother.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is, for the most part, an example of a sequel done right. It further develops and expands upon its universe and underlying themes, and it actually takes the story in a new direction rather than essentially repeating that of the first film. Also, while it's still fun, endearing, and family-friendly like the first film, it's also darker and more mature, and a bit more complex. It doesn't shy away from some dark themes, such as war and death, and it doesn't have that feeling that everything is inevitably going turn out alright in the end. There are even few good twists in the film's third act (which I found to be the most emotionally powerful part of the film).

The first HTTYD film was a simple and straightforward but extremely touching story about friendship, loyalty, acceptance, and family. Its emotional core consisted of the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless. This relationship is still crucial to the story in HTTYD 2, but it takes a back seat until the film's third act. The primary core of this film consists of a couple different elements. One of them is the reuniting of Hiccup's family. The other, more important element is the coming of age element. Yes, more than anything else, HTTYD 2 is a coming of age film for Hiccup.

The animation in this film, as expected, is spectacular. The characters, dragons, and scenery are excellently designed and visually pleasing, and the flying and aerial battle scenes are very good as well. John Powell, who composed the fantastic soundtrack for the first film, has returned and composed it for this film as well, and he still did a very good job. The soundtrack even contains a very good song that ais worth mentioning: 'Where No One Goes'. Also, the voice acting is very well done, especially Jay Baruchel as Hiccup.

Unfortunately, while I thought the first film was flawless, I cannot say the same about this film. This film has some pacing and plotting issues, a few contrived moments, a one-dimensional villain, and some underdeveloped supporting characters (the main characters are well developed, though, especially Hiccup). Additionally, the film is a bit weaker than the first film in terms of comedy, and a few of the comedic moments fall flat. Nonetheless, the film does have several humorous moments that do work.

Despite its slightly messy pacing and plotting, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is, in my opinion, a good sequel, and a good film for anybody of any age, and I'm glad I got to see it in the theater (twice – and I actually liked it a little better the second time). It is emotional, heartfelt, and humorous in areas, with some strong messages about family, friendship, forgiveness, loyalty, coming of age, and living to one's potential. Kids will enjoy it as long as they can handle some of the darker and more mature content. There is also plenty of content in the film for adults to enjoy. HTTYD 2 is one of my favorite films of the year so far, and it may very well end up being my favorite animated film of 2014 – if nothing else, I hope it receives a nomination for Best Animated Feature.

Frozen (I) (2013)

Overrated, but good nonetheless

[9/10 · 20 May 2014]

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Frozen opens up with rhythmic chanting through the Disney and WDAS logos and the opening title. This is immediately followed by a scene involving a group of ice harvesters slicing ice from a frozen lake and singing about ice, fear, and frozen hearts. This opening sets the right tone and foreshadows some of the film's underlying themes. It also has something of an ambitious feel to it, as if this film were daring to aim for the level of Beauty and the Beast and some of Disney's other best films. In my opinion, Frozen is not as good as these films, and it is not a masterpiece by any means; and frankly I think it's overrated. But I still found it to be a good movie.

Frozen is the story of sisters Anna and Elsa, the princesses of Arendelle. Elsa has magical powers to create ice and snow. These sisters were very close when they were little, until an incident where Elsa almost kills her younger sister with her powers. Their parents take Anna to some trolls who save her and erase her memories of Elsa's powers. After this, the sisters are separated and grow apart over the years. Years later, their parents die at sea, and three years after this, Elsa reaches the age at which she can become Queen. On coronation day, Anna meets Hans, a prince of another kingdom. She falls in love with him and wants to get engaged – that same day. In the ensuing argument with Elsa, Elsa inadvertently releases her powers. She then flees, unintentionally leaving the kingdom in a magically induced winter. Anna goes after her, along the way acquiring the help of an ice harvester, Kristoff, and his reindeer, Sven.

Despite the immense hype surrounding this film, some negative reviewers have claimed that the film is shallow, simplistic, messy, and empty. In my opinion, however, not only is it not, but it's also heavy with subtleties, symbolism, and subtext; and I found it to be relatable and thought provoking to a considerable degree. I will admit that the storyline itself is fairly simple and predictable. But overall, I found the story to be decent and effective, with some valuable morals including, but not limited to, the true meaning of love, overcoming one's fears, and accepting people for who they are.

The primary factor that makes the story work is the characters. The relationship between Anna and Elsa is what constitutes the film's emotional core. I was able to relate to both both of these characters, and Kristoff, to some degree. The animators really took the time to craft these three characters, giving them well-rounded, well-nuanced personalities, genuine emotional depth, and excellent physical appearances; not to mention the superlative voice performances by the cast. The animators even paid excellent attention to all of their mannerisms, tics, facial expression, and other details (even very small ones). These three characters felt to me like real people, and not two dimensional stereotypes.

Another strength of the film is the music. Christophe Beck did a good job composing the score; and Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez did a good job writing the songs, my favorites of which are "For the First Time in Forever," "Let It Go," "Do You Want to Build a Snowman," and "Frozen Heart." The songs are not excellent, but they are pretty good, and they help develop the characters and move the story along pretty well.

Some modern filmmakers, especially Michael Bay, could really learn a thing or two from movies like Frozen. I cannot deny that the animation in Frozen is very good, and the film would not have worked without it. Fortunately, however, directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee actually care about other things as well: character development, relationships, heart, storytelling, and so forth. The film actually has a warm, genuine heart of its own under all of that digital snow and ice. Also, instead of just serving as a flashy distraction, the animation is actually used to service the script (not the other way around).

Now, again, I honestly think the film is good, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. In addition to myriad missed opportunities, this film has its flaws. I found the film's second act to be a bit insipid and a little too heavy in comedy. Sure, it was funny, but it occasionally upset the comedy/drama balance, thereby preventing the second act from having the same emotional punch that the first and third acts have. Also, I felt that the story was slightly rushed and compressed. In fact, the film contains enough material for a TV miniseries. The film is solid and coherent as it is, but I still think a slightly longer running length would have done it a lot of good. Oh, and the villain is pretty weak - contrived and paper-thin (yes, there is a villain, but he is secondary to the primary conflict).

Personally I think Frozen is the best of the five Disney Revival films so far, beating out Tangled by a whisker. Disney has successfully moved into the 21st century. For the most part, they have succeeded in combining their older elements with modern ones.

Frozen is now the highest grossing animated film to date. At the same time, it's also receiving the harsh backlash that films this successful often receive. I personally think Frozen is overrated, but it's still good – charming, heartfelt, humorous, emotional, and overall entertaining - and it's one of my favorite films of 2013. Disney may not have the charisma they used to have, but at least they still know how to make a good movie.

For more reviews, and my full review of Frozen (what you have just read is a truncated version of it): visit my blog: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Powerful and harrowing

[9/10 · 26 November 2013]

Alright, imagine if you are living an ordinary day; and then the next suddenly you find your life torn away from you, and you are thrown into a different life, full of misery, despair, oppression, and brutality, possibly for many years. Well, this is exactly what happened to Solomon Northup, a free black man who, in 1841, was kidnapped, beaten, and sold into slavery. And he remained in slavery for twelve years, until he has rescued in 1853 from a plantation he was working on in Louisiana. In fact, Northup only one of the numerous people to whom this actually happened, but he was one of the only ones who regained their freedom.

Shortly after regaining his freedom, he published his story in a book titled 12 Years a Slave, which I read prior to seeing the film, and which director Steve McQueen has now adapted into said film, with the same title. Many reviewers have already summarized essentially how I personally feel about this film, so I apologize if this review feels redundant to you readers. Rather than just trying to grab money and capitalize on the market, McQueen brings to the screen an honest, accurate portrayal of the harsh conditions and life of slavery. And it old through the eyes of a man who was not born and raised as a slave, but a free end educated man who ended up having experience in both the slave and free worlds. As for the cruelty and brutality, the film doesn't tone any of it down. In fact, some scenes were difficult to watch, they were so disturbing. This film actually allowed me, to a considerable extent, to experience a bit of antebellum Southern United States slavery as it actually was. IT could also be argued that the film offers a strong view of how cruel and evil humans can be, and have been at times in the past.

The performances in this film are excellent. The script doesn't give Northup much "development," but Chiwetel Ejiofor gives his character depth and humanity through his powerful, superlative performance. He reached out grabbed by emotions strongly, pulling me into his experiences, from a free man, to his abduction, and through his experience as a slave, during which he kept the fact of his freedom mostly silent but nevertheless remained determined to someday get it back. I especially liked the way he conveyed so much emotion though facial expressions, and especially through his eyes. I predict an Oscar nomination for Ejiofor.

All of the other performances were highly commendable as well. Not all of the white people portrayed in the film, however, are cruel. A counter example is William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch). Cumberbatch's character in the film is a 180 turn around from his performance as the evil and menacing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness. His character, Ford, while blinded by the social and cultural mores of the antebellum South, treats Northup with unexpected kindness (and I look forward to future performances by Cumberbatch). Another such counterexample to the common white cruelty of the time is Bass (Brad Pitt), who eventually helps Northup to escape. As for the not-so-kind people, there are two who reflect the general beliefs and unpleasantness of many southern whites. They are Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a plantation owner and one of Northup's owners, and John Tibeats (Paul Dano), a worker for Ford. And yes, Fassbender and Dano's performed well.

While scenery is certainly not the primary draw of the film, I want to give a thumbs up for the film's cinematography and visual aspects, and Hans Zimmer's music score, which helped enhance the experience. As for the screenplay, John Ridley did a good job adapting the book into a screenplay. He did make a few minor tweaks and condensed the story a bit - in fact, there are one or two particular scenes that I think should have been included in the film, and I think that they would have made the film even better - but other than that the film is true to the book and the events.

If I were to criticize anything about the film, it would be that I really think that the feeling of twelve years passing, while effective, should have been stronger. In fact, while I liked the film and the way everything was handled in it, I felt that everything could still have been stronger - more intense, more vivid, more horrifying, more suspenseful, more gut-wrenching, more emotionally powerful, etc. But again, all of these aspects, and more, were still pretty strong in the film.

So, overall, 12 Years a Slave wasn't great like I wanted it to be, but it was good, and one of the best films of 2013; and it is an experience that I will not be forgetting anytime soon. Solomon Northup himself would have been proud of this film.

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

After Earth (2013)

After Earth

[6/10 · 2 June 2013]

I have to say, as much as I like M. Night Shyamalan, I was unsure as to whether or not he would get any directing jobs after his failure of that terrible Last Airbender movie. But, despite the negative reviews that After Earth has been receiving, I decided to give Shyamalan another chance and go see it. It does suffer from several flaws, not the least of which are weak acting and some uneven pacing among other things, but there were some things I liked and will remember about it. And if you ask me, it's definitely a step back in the right direction for Shyamalan.

It takes place a millennium after humanity was forced to leave Earth and settle on a distant planet. Katai (Jaden Smith) wants to become a soldier like his father, General Cypher Raige (Will Smith), but he fails his test for cadet promotion. He and his father have an estranged relationship; they are obviously emotionally distant from each other, and they even maintain something of a military-like relationship and behavior even at home. Eventually, he and his father are on a ship, which is damaged in an asteroid storm and crash lands on Earth, the only survivors being Cypher and Katai. Since the humans have left, the living organisms of Earth have evolved into dangerous, lethal forms. Cypher's legs having been broken in the crash, Katai must travel 100 kilometers across this dangerous terrain to where the tail of the ship is in order to retrieve a beacon.

So yes, After Earth is a futuristic science-fiction film, but it has a morality tale at its core. It explores themes of fear, courage, coming of age, and the father-son relationship, and it even contains an ecological message. It also has good visual effects, and a decent music score. This is definitely a different type of film for Shyamalan; it didn't feel much like a Shyamalan film. However, this film does have some unique and interesting aspects about it. And it even has a family relationship story (again, the father-son relationship).

The film's main issues, however, have nothing to do with any reliance, if any, upon the effects. In fact, if you ask me, it tries to truly focus on the characters, their relationship, and their struggles. But it stumbles. It suffers from some uneven pacing and storytelling and some weak dialogue, a few lines of which are unintentionally funny, and its level of intensity and emotion wavers throughout. There were parts of the movie in which I felt some relatively strong emotion, intensity, and even suspense. But other parts of the film came up short on it and weren't as emotional, suspenseful, intense, or scary as they should have been, and instead ended up feeling a bit too dry and empty.

Another thing I thought the movie suffered from was its handling of its back-stories and character development. These should have been fleshed out and explored more, and several things about it could have been interesting and could even have contributed more to the story, emotionally. Unfortunately, the film didn't go into this as much as it should have, and instead it went a little over the top with scenes of Katai out in the wild (a few of these particular scenes did feel a bit like unnecessary "filler").

Another major issue is the acting. If you ask me, I think it's a bit obvious that Jaden Smith only got the role because he is Will Smith's son. I found him tolerable and mostly effective, but his acting is wooden. Will Smith's acting is decent and effective, but even his acting is a bit stiff.

However, the film does make an effort, and while it does come up short on several aspects, I would say that it tries, and it doesn't completely fail. Overall, I didn't much like the film, but I did find it a bit entertaining, and I felt that the effort, themes, and ideas behind it definitely showed through. Now, again, I didn't think the film was great; I just thought it was adequate, or so-so; but I'm still a bit glad that I saw it. And again, it's step back in the right direction for Shyamalan, in my opinion; maybe there's still hope for him after all. My time and money weren't completely worth the experience, but they weren't wasted either.

My Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

My film review blog: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

Epic (2013)

Hardly epic, but good

[8/10 · 29 May 2013]

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

The way things a currently looking, this might very well not be a Pixar year. A much as I might enjoy Monsters University and possibly Planes, they may very well not be my favorite animated films of the year, and they probably won't be. The Croods is already my favorite animated film of the year, and this movie, Epic, in my opinion, is also pretty good.

The main protagonist of the film is Mary Katherine, or M. K., a likable (and cute) teenage girl who, after her mother's death, goes to live with her eccentric and reclusive father. Her father believes that there is a miniature world of magical little people and creatures that live in the forest, and of course other people, including M. K., don't believe him. However, she soon magically shrunken and discovers this little world, which she must save.

And so on. I admit, the movie is not very epic; it is a bit generic and has just about every cliché possible: good vs. evil, balance of nature, dysfunctional parent/child relationship, etc etc. The film resembles a number of other films, such as FernGully, Avatar, and Honey I Shrunk the Kids, among others. One of the main characters, the Nod, even resembles Flynn Rider from Tangled pretty strongly (but this wasn't a problem for me). However, I disagree with everyone who is calling it charmless, forgettable, too reliant on visuals, and weak in terms of character, plot, heart, etc. That's right, I actually enjoyed it.

I actually thought the movie was handled fairly well and has a decent, solid, enjoyable, well- paced plot. The film started out a bit slow, but I started to get more interested as trouble started brewing in the miniature forest world and then M. K. gets shrunken; from then on the movie was much better, and I got interested and emotionally involved in the story. The film also has likable characters and relationships, and good voice performances by Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Colin Farrell, Beyonce Knowles, and the rest of the cast. It even had some good humorous parts, including a pair of mollusks and a three-legged dog.

The best part of the film is the animation; dazzling, lively, meticulously detailed, and it helps bring everything to life. Like Avatar, this movie has what I found to be an interesting, immersing, well-designed setting. Also, like Avatar, it has a good, strong ecological message, which I appreciate. It also has heart, charm, and genuine emotion, and additional good moral messages such as friendship, love, bravery, and selflessness.

Bottom line: If you ask me, Epic is hardly epic, but it's good. And it was especially enjoyable for me on the big screen. Kids will certainly love it; and if you are an adult, like me, just let out your inner child and enjoy the film.

For more reviews, visit my review blog: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The Dark Knight Rises

[9/10 · 25 April 2013]

Of the three Dark Knight movies directed by Christopher Nolan, The Dark Knight rises is the only one I have seen in the theater, an experience I quite enjoyed. Now, to be honest, if I were to just look at this film all on its own and disregard the previous two films, I would only have found it to be decent, or just good at best. It does have some flaws, and it's my least favorite of the three installments. But when I take into account the previous two films, this film becomes immensely entertaining for me.

At the end of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne, guised as Batman, took the rap for Harvey Dent's crimes. This film picks up eight years later, where Bruce has since hung up the cape and now stays mainly shut up in his mansion. Meanwhile, Gotham has improved (at least on the surface…). However, a new villain, Bane, comes to town, forcing Bruce back into action despite his tarnished Batman reputation.

I felt that the weakest part of the film was the first forty-five minutes; I found this part of the film to be a bit slow and uneven. But after this, the film got significantly better, and continued to get better and better as the story progressed (with a few twists) until the ending, which I loved. Admittedly the storyline is a bit of a retread of Batman Begins, and there are some frankly big gaps in logic. This film is more dreamlike and less cerebral than the previous two films, and it's a bit too long. Not to mention we don't see much Batman. However, I did feel that this film was a slight step up emotionally from the previous two. And the running length didn't bother me all that much; in fact, I would say that a director's cut would be completely justified.

The actors all put on good performances. There is Christian Bale, of course, who has brought charisma to Bruce Wayne/Batman since the beginning of Nolan's series. The other actors do a good job too. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, who has less screen time in this film than he had before, but is no less powerful. Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner Gordon, and even Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, who provides Bruce with a new, aerial form of transportation (and yes, it does come in black).

We also have some new characters, all (or at least most) of who make worthy additions to the franchise. There is the badass and utterly terrifying villain, Bane. Tom Hardy pulls off a worthy performance of this masked menace, masterful and merciless. Anne Hathaway and Marion Cottilard play Selina Kyle and Miranda Tate, respectively, the latter of whom with whom Bruce even sleeps; but this doesn't develop into anything more than just a brief, shallow affair; Bruce's romantic interests pretty much ended with Rachel's death in the previous film. I even want to give a thumbs-up to Joseph Gordon Levitt; and we learn something special about his character at the end of the film.

Again, I think the film is just decent, or good at best, on its own, but I love it as a chapter in the overall series (although, again, it is my least favorite film of the trilogy). While I can enjoy Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises as stand-alones as well as parts of a series, I feel that my appreciation for this one is extremely dependent on the basis established by the previous two installments. That brings me to my next point: the highlight of the film for me is the continuation of the overall story of the series. If you ask me, this film brings Bruce Wayne's story to an excellent conclusion. As for the lack of Batman, I would have liked to see more of him, but his absence did not bother me much as this is really more of a Bruce Wayne movie rather than a Batman movie.

This film has some connections and references to the first film. For me, the most powerful of these is the reference to the theme of learning to pick ourselves back up after we fall. This theme is introduced in the first film as Bruce falls into the well and his father helps him out. The reference to this theme in TDKR (which also reflects the film's title) is a highly symbolic one that involves an underground prison that Bruce has to climb out of, while the prisoners watching him chant a very catchy and memorable chant. His father helped him out of that well as a kid, and now he has to climb out of this prison himself. He now has to learn to pick himself back up, both literally and symbolically. This scene also excellently symbolizes Bruce's overall, underlying journey to rise back up and re-discover the will to live.

Overall, this is one of my favorite film trilogies. In addition to having great action sequences and effects, it also has a great, relatable underlying story. It has great moral messages, such consequences for one's actions, and much more. This trilogy contains a lot of life's lessons. And it doesn't exactly hurt that it works as pure blockbuster entertainment as well.

Before I close, I want to mention the music score. Hans Zimmer returns to work his musical magic on this film just like he did on BB and TDK. Especially noteworthy is that recurring two-note motif that has appeared repeatedly throughout the entire series. Whenever this motif is heard, it never completely resolves, always posing some questions. Just like the motif, even at the points where the story resolves, it never quite resolves completely, always posing some questions and uncertainties as to what is to come in the future, among other things. In fact, it is this two-note motif with which the film, and the series, ends.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012)

Actions have consequences...

[10/10 · 25 April 2013]

The Place Beyond the Pines opens with a very long tracking shot that follows a motorcycle stunt driver, Luke (Ryan Gosling), across a carnival and into a tent containing the spherical metal stunt cage. This long tracking is an indicator that this is going to be an ambitious, self-aware piece of filmmaking. And that's what it is. Piercing through jumble of other films of the early spring like a high-intensity electromagnetic wave comes The Place Beyond the Pines, a well-written, well-acted, well-directed, emotional, intelligent, suspenseful, multi-layered, thought-provoking film, and, in my opinion, one of the best films of the year so far. It is three-part drama that unfolds over a completely justified running length of nearly two and a half hours.

The first part of the film is about the aforementioned tattooed motorcycle stunt daredevil, Luke, a good-hearted but reckless and troubled man. Ryan Gosling puts on an excellent performance, bringing this character to life. A great portion of his performance is dialogue-free and big on actions and facial expressions. When he does speak, he speaks quietly and deliberately.

Eva Mendes plays Romina, whom Luke had slept with in the past, and is now the mother of his infant son as a result of that fling. She is now with another man, but Luke, determined to provide for her and his son, quits his job as a motorcycle stunt driver and resorts to robbing banks to provide for them. This is a bad decision, obviously, and it leads to even worse decisions.

This eventually leads Luke to cross paths with police officer named Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper). Pretty soon, the first act ends. The second act focuses on Avery, whom Bradley Cooper portrays with an outstanding performance. Avery is an ambitious rookie cop who looks to quickly move up the ranks in the corruption-riddled police department in which he works. The third act of the film takes place fifteen years after the end of the second act, and it focuses on the sons of Luke and Avery, who are now in high school and are haunted by the past sins of their fathers.

I don't like this film as much as, say, The Godfather, but it is pretty far up there; it is bold and innovative, with a strong emphasis on character and plot development; it is a good example of expert storytelling. Also, this film has a very strong personal touch to it; I truly cared about the characters and felt all of the emotions that they felt throughout the course of their experiences – love, guilt, emotional torment, embarrassment, stress, etc. As the story progresses, it takes some surprising and sometimes shocking turns, and there is a riveting sense of tension all the way through the film.

This film is great character study, and it really gives us some things to think about. It explores themes including, but not limited to, guilt, justice, revenge, love, and even a father's love for his son. However, there is one theme that stands out above the others explored in the film: consequences. Actions have consequences, the effects of which affect other people and the world, and can even ripple through time and generations. The film emphasizes and illustrates this theme very strongly, and it gives us some good food for thought on the subject.

The movie is excellently filmed, and while the camera work and cinematography is by no means the primary draw of the film, it really enhanced the experience and helped pull me into the film. The music score is also very good. Overall, I can think of very little to criticize about this film. Although, I do have to admit, the third act of the film was slightly less powerful than the previous two, and a little too slow. But I still found it very compelling.

Again, overall, this film is en excellent example of what can result from a great script, great performances, great directing, and lots of heart and emotional punch. This film has one of the strongest and most genuine heartbeats that I have felt in a film in quite a while. I highly recommend this film.

Remember, actions have consequences. Never forget that. Negative actions result in negative consequences. Good actions result in good consequences. For example, Derek Cianfrance put in a great deal of focus and effort into making this film, and the consequence is that he made an emotionally riveting, multi-layered, thought-provoking masterpiece, which has earned high praise from me, and will hopefully at least receive an Oscar nomination.

My rating: **** (out of ****)

The Croods (2013)

A pleasant surprise

[9/10 · 13 April 2013]

I found The Croods to be a pleasant surprise. It exceeded any expectations I had prior to seeing it. Twentieth Century Fox has teamed up with the studio behind How to Train Your Dragon and Shrek, put How to Train Your Dragon director Chris Sanders on the helm along with Kirk De Micco, and come out with this lively, rousing, and highly entertaining work. It doesn't quite rise up the level of Shrek or How to Train Your Dragon (the latter of which is my favorite DreamWorks animated film), but it's definitely one of DreamWorks's better films. It certainly contains the studio's style, and some elements from (and a few references to) a few of its previous films, including the aforementioned Shrek and HTTYD.

The Croods tells the story of a caveman family, (yes, you've guessed it) the Croods, the last surviving family in the region in which they live. They live by hiding in their cave most of the time, only going out to hunt. They always play it safe and live in fear, especially of anything new; as the father, Gurg (Nicolas Cage) says, "Never not be afraid."

The exception to this is Grug's teenage daughter Eep (Emma Stone), who, instead of wanting to play it safe all the time, is willing to take risks and learn new things. Because of this, she is a bit distant from her family. One night she ventures out of the cave and meets a young man named Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who warns her that the world is about to end. Sure enough, an earthquake occurs soon afterward, destroying the Croods' cave (but this is just the beginning). This sends the family on a journey with Guy across an incredible land that they have never experienced, full of fantastic creatures and more, while heading to a mountain where they will supposedly be safe.

I honestly cannot think of much to criticize about the film, except maybe a little bit of the plotting, but that's about it. Again, it doesn't live up to How to Train Your Dragon, but it's still good (and it is admittedly a bit better in terms of character development). It is full of clever humor, wit, and energy. The humor is neither too childish nor too adult. The film also contains true emotion and good, valuable morals. And it is absolutely full of heart. The animation is excellent; colorful, lively, and dazzling. And I want to give a major thumbs-up to Alan Silvestri for the score, which is lively and rousing, just like everything else about the film.

Another especially noteworthy aspect of the film is Eep. Strong female protagonists seem to be fairly popular these days, and Eep is no exception. All of the characters shine, not completely dominating any of the others, but she does shine a bit more than the others. Her appearance brought to mind Fiona from Shrek (which is not surprising, as the same studio is behind them both). She is strong, bold, daring, and rebellious, and her personality recalls that of the aforementioned Fiona, Astrid from HTTYD, and even a bit of Merida from Brave. And yes, there is definitely a bit of Astrid in her; just look at the way she treats Guy when she first meets him. However, they do eventually develop some feelings for each other (which Grug is not too happy about). Eep and all of the other character of the film are lovable, as are the interactions and family values, dynamics, and bonding. The voice performances are good too.

From beginning to end, there was not a single moment anywhere in the entire film where I was bored. Again, it's not great, but it is good. It is a clever, witty, humorous, energetic, rousing, heartwarming delight, and I hope it gets nominated for the Best Animated Film Oscar. I will not be surprised if it becomes a childhood classic for future generations. I even stayed for the credits. And its primary moral message is one that anybody can relate to: don't let your life get stale – go out and learn and experience new things, live up to your potential, and really live your life and dreams.

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013)

Surprisingly enjoyable

[7/10 · 3 March 2013]

As James Berardinelli points out in his review of this film, Hollywood currently seems to be going through a trend of fairytale/folklore re-imaginations. Unlike what Disney does in their re-imaginations of such stories, these are tending to be darker and more mature, with more adult elements. A couple of these are Alice In Wonderland and Snow White and the Huntsman. I haven't seen the former, but I have seen the latter, and to be honest I wasn't overwhelmed. Now, Hollywood decides it's time for such an adaptation of Jack and the Beanstalk, and along comes director Bryan Singer, who helms Jack the Giant Slayer, which I found to be somewhat enjoyable, and a worthy addition to the current trend.

Nicholas Hoult plays the title character, Jack, a farmboy who has grown up hearing about a legendary tale about giants living in a place between the earth and heaven. Jack soon comes into possession of some magic beans, and soon inadvertently grows a beanstalk that sprouts out from under his house up into the sky, all the way up to the giants' world (carrying the house up with it). Princess Isabelle happens to be in Jack's house when this occurs, and she is caught up in the gigantic sprouting vines and carried up to the giant world (talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time).

Jack climbs up the beanstalk along with the princess's protectors and her fiancé, Roderick, to search for her. However, Roderick has with him a legendary magical crown with the power to exercise control over the giants, and secretly plans to use it to assemble the giants and take over the human world below. Jack, meanwhile, searches for, and eventually falls in love with, the princess.

I was expecting this film to be dorky, and yes, it is a bit so. However, it was actually not as stupid as I thought it would be. In fact, it does have some fairly smart elements. The story follows a fairly simple, straightforward, and predictable trajectory, and it had the potential to expand and be a lot more, and some of the plotting could have been better, but it is entertaining. It even has some good comical moments here and there. The CGI and effects are pretty good. Everything is very well designed and feels alive. The setting is portrayed excellently, especially the giant world. The giants are truly menacing, and, well, if any of these giants existed in real life, I certainly wouldn't want to get near them. The action sequences are good too, although some scenes may be a bit too intense and violent for little children. But what I liked most of all, in terms of the CGI and effects, was the beanstalk.

As with a number of films these days, some of the action and CGI sequences tend to be a little too long and over the top. This is not much of a problem, although they could have cut some of it. The characterization is relatively simple, and character development is a bit lacking, but even so, I liked and cared about the characters. Jack is a good protagonist, and Nicholas Hoult portrays him pretty well. Isabelle is an enjoyable love interest and damsel in distress. And all the other characters, while again, a bit underdeveloped, are all enjoyable in their roles. I even found Ewan McGregor's character likable. And overall, the film does offer a good sense of adventure.

A little while back, I watched Snow White and the Huntsman, and overall I found the film to be so-so. However, in Jack the Giant Slayer, I did find the beginning (up until the beanstalk sprouted and the story really began) to be a bit slow, but after that, I got somewhat interested in the story, world, and characters, and stayed that way for the rest of the movie. Although, as some reviewers have pointed out, only male giants are seen in the film. Where are the females (if any)? If not, how do the giants reproduce? They are not immortal, as some of them die in the film. But still, this does not spoil the film in any way. Again, it is not a great movie; it's most certainly not Oscar material or anything like that. And it's not even trying to be. It's a competent, unpretentious film, neither pretending nor trying to be more than what it is; a fun, decent, fast-paced action/adventure fantasy flick, and a worthy retelling of the old Jack and the Beanstalk fairytale. Don't go see it expecting an incredibly complex and thought provoking film; just sit back and enjoy the show.

One of the main reasons I went to see this film (among others) was because Bryan Singer directed it. I enjoyed the first two X-Men movies and Superman Returns (yes, I liked it), and so I was curious about this film. As it turns out, Bryan Singer proves that he is still a competent film director.

My Rating: *** (out of ****)

Brave (2012)

Review - Brave

[9/10 · 15 December 2012]

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Over its years, Pixar has brought its magic of high quality animation and good storytelling to the screen. Some of their films are better than others, but I've at least liked, or even loved, all of their films to date. I even found Cars 2 to be okay, even though it's my least favorite Pixar film. This summer I went to theater to see Brave, Pixar's thirteenth major feature film. I was a bit worried due to a lot of the negative criticism surrounding the film, but I ended up enjoying it. I also saw it again recently on DVD. I've already written a review for this film, but I've decided to re-write it now that I've had a couple additional viewings of the film.

Brave is the story of Merida, a young red-haired princess and aspiring archer who is unhappy with her controlled and restricted life. When she is asked by her mother, Queen Elinor, to choose between three possible suitors from three other clans, she is even more upset, and, after a spat with her mother, she eventually flees into the woods, and soon comes upon a cottage (led there by magical blue willo-the-wisps), where she meets a witch. She begs for a magic spell to change her mother's mind, but it doesn't exactly go according to how Merida wants it...and problems ensue...

I was a bit worried that I would like the movie on DVD less than I did on the big screen, but I ended up enjoying it just as much as I did before, and I still stand by my three-and-a-half (out of four) star rating. Brave is not without problems, but I can tell that the filmmakers really put in a good amount of effort to try and make the film work for what it's worth. The film's flaws are mostly forgivable and, while they do hold the film back from living up to its potential, they do not spoil the film.

The story is not original or creative, and it's somewhat clichéd and predictable in areas. But the film does contain a lot of uniqueness, both visually and story-wise. What I liked most about the film was Merida herself, whom I found to be an interesting, complex, and charismatic character. She may be a princess, and yes, in a Disney movie, but she's not your average Disney princess. She's not the kind of princess who falls in love with a prince on a white steed. She is spunky, strong-willed, and independent, and she has bright, wild red hair that matches her personality. I fell in love with her, and I genuinely cared about her and even related to her a bit, and I stuck with her and got emotionally involved throughout the film. I even thought she was cute in terms of physical appearance, especially her hair. And Kelly MacDonald further helps to bring this feisty lass to life with a great voice performance with a cute Scottish accent.

I enjoyed the dynamic relationship between her and her mother, and the bonding they undergo. Again, this is not a romance film. Instead, it concerns more personal and more relatable themes (in my opinion); family values and relationships, personal decisions, controlling one's own fate (deciding your own path in life), admitting one's mistakes, and some other valuable and life lessons. I especially liked the mother-daughter aspect. I myself am a 20 year old guy, but I still related to Merida and her relationship with her mother. While it may not be a romance film, it's definitely a film about love.

The animation in this film is stunningly beautiful and helps bring the film to life. The Scottish landscape, the characters, Merida's hair, the wisps, and everything else in the film is all excellently animated. Sound-wise the film is very good too, both music and other effects. Composer Patrick Doyle, who was responsible for the score in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, composed a great score for this film. I think the film could have used some more (and better) humor, but it did have its humorous moments as it is. It also handles its more emotional areas well, if you ask me.

I feel that there are some things in the film that are meant to be felt rather than explained, and a few of these are meant to be a bit mysterious and open-ended. The film somewhat succeeds at these, but unfortunately it stumbles a bit here. I feel that the filmmakers overreached a bit in these areas. As a result some of these things didn't have the full effect they were supposed to have, and some of them felt a bit out of place. Yes, the movie felt a bit uneven and unpolished in some areas, and even bit compressed and rushed in a few.

I honestly think the film could have benefited from a longer running length, with which the film could have improved some things, including, but not limited to, fleshing out the characters more, explaining some things better, and polishing up some plot elements. Also, it would have allowed the mysterious and open-ended feeling be established properly, with an appropriate balance between the things that are explained and those that are meant to be felt. Another criticism (more minor, though) I have is that the film could have used a bit more thought towards character development; the characters are all effective, and some of them memorable (especially Merida), but except for Merida and Elinor, the characters are a bit underdeveloped.

However, despite these shortcomings, and a few more, I enjoyed the movie; I thought it was handled pretty well, even the weaker areas. Brave is a bit flawed, and it's definitely not Pixar's best, but I found it be a good movie overall; it's cute, charming, heartwarming, funny in areas, visually stunning, and undeserving of the negativity it receives.

Lincoln (2012)

Review - Lincoln

[10/10 · 28 November 2012]

Anybody searching for a biography film about Abraham Lincoln's full life and "major" events will have to look elsewhere. Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (which I saw in the theater over Thanksgiving weekend) has a brief battle scene at the beginning, and a few scenes near the end taking place around (and during) the time of the assassination, but most of the film (and the meat of the film) is confined to January 1865, and is about Lincoln striving to get the 13th amendment to the Constitution (banning slavery) passed.

If you ask me, limiting the time frame of the film like this was a very smart decision. Showing all the major events of his life is not necessary; this film, with its shorter time frame, does a great job at it. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it does a better job of it than a traditional bio-pic would. The film doesn't really want to show his life, but rather paint a true portrait of the man himself; who was he, really, as a person, president, etc.? The film is restricted mostly (although not entirely) to offices, courtrooms, Capitol chambers, and places like that, but it still does a very good job at portraying the time period, visually, politically, and in every other way, and with good detail. In fact, while I generally don't find politics interesting or appealing, I actually found the political aspect of this film somewhat interesting.

Another major factor that makes the film work so well is the acting. Daniel Day-Lewis put on an excellent performance as Abraham Lincoln; deep, dynamic, powerful, and very convincing. In fact, his performance is what I liked best about the entire film. He didn't just portray Lincoln, he practically was Lincoln. He was pretty convincing in terms of physical appearance, but more importantly, he was almost perfect in terms of his character (in other words, becoming Lincoln). In short, Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln is great and unforgettable, and completely Oscar-worthy (and he may actually win). All of the other actors (including Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) also put their best foot forward and deliver very good and convincing performances. They slip right into and bring out their characters.

Steven Spielberg has delivered again. He has directed several films that I like, some of them nostalgic favorites. He has made many different types of films, all across the genre spectrum; sci-fi, adventure, war, fantasy, history, serious films, fun films, etc etc. He's not perfect, and not all of his films are good, but, again, a lot of them are, and Lincoln is one such film, and one in which he again proves that he can make just about any type of film. In my opinion it's still not as good as some of his best films, like Schindler's List and War Horse, but it's still great. And once again, Spielberg has teamed up with score composer John Williams. Williams's score isn't anywhere near as good or memorable as a lot of his previous works, but it's still pretty good and it fits the film very well.

All in all, the film is not perfect, and it actually only scraped a full 10 from me by a little bit. It could have been better in some aspects, even some of its better aspects, but it's still a great film. Great performances, great historical portrayal, etc. In fact, if I had to label one film about Lincoln the definitive film about him, it would probably this one. The film brought me closer to the real-life figure of Lincoln than I have ever been before (literature, pictures, documentaries, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if this film ends up being used in school and college history courses.

Lincoln is compelling and moving, and a film truly worthy of its title; it paints an excellent portrait of America's sixteenth president.

My Rating: **** (out of ****)

For more reviews, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

Thor (2011)

Review - Thor

[6/10 · 31 October 2012]

Thor is one of the "prequels" to The Avengers - the "prequels" are Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, and The Incredible Hulk. I still have yet to see The Incredible Hulk, but I have seen the other four films. I personally think that Thor is the worst of them. However, despite it's ultimate shortcomings, it does have its positive aspects.

The story is about Thor of Asgard. This arrogant Thor recklessly travels to another world called Jotunheim with Loki and some other Asgardian warriors and attacks the Frost Giants there, stirring up tension and possible war between Jotunheim and Asgard. As a result, Odin, Thor's father, strips Thor of his powers, and his mighty hammer, and banishes him to Earth.

On earth, in New Mexico, astrophysicist Jane Foster is researching a phenomenon in the desert (which turns out to be associated with Asgard-related activity, in this case Thor's banishment). Thor arrives and is discovered by Jane and her partners, and pretty soon he begins to learn the error of his arrogant ways, and he even falls in love with Jane. Meanwhile, Loki has taken over the Throne of Asgard, and he plans to send the Destroyer to earth to kill Thor, and Thor must retrieve his hammer and his powers to save both earth and Asgard.

The film has both its ups and downs. I'll start out by talking about the effects. The visual effects are pretty good. The mythical words are pretty well designed, and the actions scenes are good. As for the script, it does have its flaws, but it's an acceptable script. The story isn't the best, and it's a bit bland and formulaic, but again, it's acceptable. It even has some creativity in it. Unfortunately, however, despite its creativity, it's a bit bland and formulaic. The first act of the film (the first half hour) is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the film, and it felt to me that the movie was relying a bit too much on effects, but it does establish the characters and basis necessary for the story. It's also where most of the film's creativity is.

Weak as the first act is, I did find some things a bit interesting, and some things were introduced that had a lot of potential to get even better and more interesting and creative. But unfortunately, at the end of the first act, right after Thor arrives on earth, the movie abandons a lot of its creativity and resorts to a formula. Some of the things in the first act (which had a lot of creative and interesting potential) are even abandoned and not brought up again in the film. This, and the film's bland-ness, and a few other flaws, are the main reason why I only gave this film two and a half stars instead of three or higher (it almost got three, but it just missed it). Also, I felt that the Thor/Jane romance was a bit rushed.

However, despite this, the film does get going a little bit more after Thor's banishment. This is where the heart and characters begin to shine. That brings up what I liked most about the film: the characters. I found them somewhat likable and interesting. The film even has a surprisingly good sense of humor; there are a lot of good comedy moments. These things are not strong enough to bring the film up to a higher rating, but they are still somewhat enjoyable. I especially liked Loki, even though he's the villain, and I was glad to see him and Thor return for The Avengers.

So, overall, I think Thor is a so-so movie. It is a bit bland and formulaic, and could have used a better story, but it has enjoyable characters, humor, and action, and is not bad overall. It's a bit meh, but it's a bit entertaining, although it's not something I'd want to watch more than once.

My Rating: **1/2 (out of ****) For more reviews, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

Rear Window (1954)

Review - Rear Window

[10/10 · 23 October 2012]

As of right now, I have only seen three of Alfred Hitchcock's films: Psycho, Vertigo, and now Rear Window. I have to say, I already like the way Hitchcok creates suspense, and also his methods of storytelling and tampering with narrative elements. A number of people, including film critic James Berardinelli, consider Rear Window to be Hitchcock's best film. As of right now, I personally agree; I've only seen three of his films, but Rear Window is my favorite of the three.

Rear Window is appropriately named. The protagonist, L. B. Jefferies (James Stewart), is a professional photographer with a broken leg, and is therefore confined to his apartment in New York. He spends the time watching his neighbors from his rear window (see, I told you the film was appropriately named). Soon, however, he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors might have murdered his wife, and he becomes obsessed with this mystery, and eventually he even gets his girlfriend to help him investigate.

What I loved most about the film was the way the story is told. Just like Vertigo and Psycho, Rear Window has a strong and unmatched uniqueness and, even though elements of the film have almost certainly been used in films between then and now. What I really found interesting is the "restriction" of the film; except for a brief spot near the end, the film is entirely restricted to inside Jefferies's apartment and his view from his rear window. The events of the story that happen outside of the apartment are either only mentioned in the dialogue or seen from the window.

However, despite this restriction to voyeurism, it's actually somewhat interesting watching going-ons outside in the courtyard and through the windows of other people's apartments, even though we are watching these things from a distance instead of having the scenes be set in those actual areas. Even in real life, a lot can often be learned even just by watching, and it can be quite interesting. Also, the suspense in the film handled very well. And I should also point out that, like in Psycho and Vertigo, the the story is not entirely predictable; Hitchcock cleverly throws in some things that flout the audience's expectations.

In addition to all of this, the actors, especially James Stewart, put on good performances. They are likable and believable. Jefferies is a semi-interesting character, and his relationship with his girlfriend, Lisa, is handled pretty well. The other performances are good too. Overall, the performances in this movie are another factor that make the film great, and they are especially useful given the "containment" of the film's story.

Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, among other things. I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.

My Rating: **** (out of ****) For more reviews, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

King Kong (2005)

Review - King Kong (2005)

[5/10 · 11 October 2012]

A number of people complain that James Cameron's Avatar was a huge show-off of CGI with flaws, a weak, thin story, and very little substance. I disagree with this, but I do think that this statement would be somewhat accurate in describing Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, which I saw on Sunday (October 7, just four days ago). I wouldn't describe this film using that statement word-for-word, but the "massive amount of CGI and lots of flaws" part is pretty accurate for this film, if you ask me.

I've seen a clip of original 1933 King Kong film, but I've never seen the entire film, so I won't be able to compare and contrast the films. So I will just talk about this film. The story is set in 1933. Film director Carl Denham (Jack Black) wants to travel to a mysterious island called Skull Island to finish his film. He finds a lead lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). After a while, during which Ann falls in love with Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), they reach the island, but soon the natives there capture Ann and give her up to Kong, a giant gorilla. Kong takes Ann and retreats into the jungle, and Carl, Jack, and the crew go in after her, along the way encountering many creatures and other dangers.

The visual effects in this film are very good and convincing. Everything is designed with great detail, especially Kong. James Newton Howard composed a good score for the film. And I liked Kong himself. He's not just a one-dimensional figure; he actually has some personality and depth, and I did feel the emotional impact of his death at the end of the film. And I liked the scenes involving Ann and Kong, and I liked the bond that developed between them (although it should have been stronger).

Now for the criticisms...where you you like me to begin? In my opinion, the film is way too long. It also has some serious pacing and structure issues. The exposition is too long; over an hour passes before Kong appears. I was hoping for the movie to get better after Kong's initial appearance. This is where Ann is taken by Kong, and Carl, Jack, and the crew follow them deeper into the island. But, unfortunately, (at least for me) it actually got worse after Kong's appearance. The film basically discards most of its substance, and many other things established in the hour-long first act (and the natives on the island who give Ann to Kong), and goes into over-the-top and overly-long CGI sequences. I felt to me almost as if the film couldn't make up its mind as to what is important and what is pointless. The storyline is somewhat cluttered, and, again, not properly paced. Things are not paid off properly, etc., and don't have the bones to support it.

The film had so much potential, and, in my opinion it ended up blowing most of it. Again, I haven't seen the original 1933 film, but even so, this film (2005) could have been great. Like I said before, the effects are interesting, and a lot of the design is good, but the film even had trouble here. The creatures that the characters encounter on the island seemed more as if they were designed mainly to look cool or scary rather than anything else. Also, the "world" (Skull Island) doesn't really work with the narrative like it should. It, and the CGI, felt more like it was there to just look cool and distract the viewer from the flaws, which of course does not work on me. Also, good as the effects are, some of the creatures and sequences were pretty stupid; I almost rolled my eyes in a few areas.

I felt that Skull Island was begging for a firm establishment in the film, even as a character in itself. I felt that it was begging to have the film go somewhat into its history, biology, etc, and that the film should have maybe gone into Kong's background, and stuff like that (and more about the natives). Unfortunately, the film does not do this. Maybe if it did, it would somewhat justify the three-hour running time. But it doesn't, and it ends up being too thin and too long. Also, the Kong/Ann and Kong's death scenes, effective as they are, could have been much better.

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable and a bit entertaining, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings. It has some redeeming values, but it has to many flaws, in my opinion. It felt almost like a great movie trapped in a lame one.

Note: Avatar, like King Kong, has some script flaws and could have used more depth, but in my opinion it's actually an okay movie. It's solid, coherent, and has a much better world. Also, in my opinion, the world Pandora actually felt alive to me, and I felt that it was actually a character in the film (not to mention carefully crafted with actual thoughts towards science, biology, ecosystems, etc., rather than just things to look cool). Also, in my opinion, Avatar has more meaning (it's not meaningless at all), more emotion, more relatability, much stronger romance, and a much more coherent story.

District 9 (2009)

Review - District 9

[9/10 · 26 September 2012]

Personally, I am a bit of a science fiction lover. I have seen tons of sic-fi films, from fun and lighthearted popcorn flicks to deep and emotional ones. I've seen clichéd and basic-formula ones, and ones that have a distinct uniqueness about them - new worlds, unique scientific concepts, memorable scientific technology and what not, and much more; and, best of all, unique twists on stories. District 9 is one such unique science fiction film. It has several obvious clichéd and borrowed aspects, but overall it's a somewhat creative film, and pretty memorable, too. I didn't see it when it came out, and, in fact, I had never even heard of it until sometime last year. So, after reading a bit about the film, yet still not knowing much about it, I decided to give it a try in May (yes, this year), and I'm glad I did.

District 9 eludes many expectations of a sic-fi audience. The film is set in an alternate timeline, where, in 1982, a spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa (instead of a usual sci-fi setting). The aliens on board, instead of being evil and strong with an urge do kill, are helpless and in weak condition. The aliens, unable to operate the ship anymore, are taken to a temporary camp on the ground underneath where the ship is hovering. Unfortunately, due to the the high population of these aliens, and to typical political flaws, over the years, the temporary camp eventually turns into a giant slum segregated from the rest of Johannesburg. Also, the initial welcome wears off, and humans begin to discriminate against the aliens, nicknamed "prawns" due to their ugly appearance. Finally, in 2010, the Multi-National United munitions corporation is sent to evict these prawns from the slum, with Wikus van der Merwe in charge. In the process, Wikus is exposed to a strange alien chemical, at which point his personal nightmare begins and everything changes drastically for him, and the story really starts to get going and unfold. I won't give anything else away about the story after this last thing: along the way, Wikus befriends an alien, and his small son.

District 9 combines dosages of the man-befriends-other-race-and-turns-against-his-own-people theme, the don't-judge-a-book-by-it's-cover moral, political elements, elements of racism, segregation, and discrimination, and a bit of E. T. and some other themes. It uses its running time wisely and tells its story very effectively. Some of the film is in documentary-style, and part of it is in regular style, and there are even some shots seen here and there from security cameras, and things like that. Visually, the film has a gritty, ugly look about it, adds brilliantly to the tone of the film, and gives it a bit of a more realistic feel to it. Even the aliens themselves are pretty ugly, but they are very well portrayed with top-notch CGI. In fact, all of the special effects in the film are very good. Clinton Shorter composed a very effective score for this film. It's not a great score or anything, but it does help bring out the tone and emotion of the film, just like the special effects do.

There is not a single actor in the film whom I have heard of before seeing this film. However, the actors' performances are pretty good. The actors really bring out their characters very well. I liked the characters. They are strong and dynamic. Wikus is a good protagonist, and I really cared about him while watching the film. I also came to like the aliens he befriends - they may be ugly, but I really felt true emotion for them and their inner characters, who they really are inside, especially the big one (the father). I know hardly anything about director Neil Blomkamp, but he did a very good job with this film. There are definitely some things that he could have done better, and the overall film was not great, but Blomkamp did a good job overall, and gave us a pretty good film.

So, overall, while District 9 is, in my opinion, not quite an iconic or classic science fiction film, it's still pretty unique, and it has some pretty memorable things about it. It's not really something I might remember immediately many years from now as a classic film or anything, but, like I said before, it's pretty memorable. It's a smart, emotional, and entertaining science fiction film, and it's definitely worth seeing at least once.

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****) For more reviews, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

The Last Airbender (2010)

Review - The Last Airbender

[3/10 · 5 September 2012]

In my senior year in high school, I performed in a big orchestra performance for my school district in which we played a music selection from The Last Airbender, conducted by Pete Anthony himself. The visual clip itself (the finale wave scene) was projected on a screen hanging from the ceiling for the audience to watch while we, the orchestra, accompanied it. From where I was sitting, I could not see the screen, but I certainly loved the music that we played. James Newton Howard has really got musical talent. That particular clip from the movie was actually given high ratings by some movie music critics (I don't remember their names or their organization), and I don't blame them. That scene, and the music, were pretty good. But,...why couldn't the rest of the movie be as good as that scene?

The music, especially in that scene, is pretty much one of the only, if not the only, good thing about the movie, in my opinion. The movie is not as bad as so many people have said it is, but yes, it is bad, in just about every aspect. M. Night Shyamalan is a talented director, but this time, alas, he must have taken the day off. The script is terrible, and when the script is terrible, the movie is usually terrible, and that's the case here. Shyamalan seems to have turned his focus away altogether from storytelling, and story and character development, and more towards the mythology of the world. And on top of that, based on what I've heard, he seems to have totally disregarded the original anime series. I myself have never seen the anime series, so I really can't say anything about it, but based on what I saw in the movie, I believe what I've heard.

The plot is incomprehensible, the pacing is poor, the confusion is high, and the acting is kind of weak. Even the visual and special effects, while they were okay, weren't as good as they were really supposed to be. And on top of all that, and probably because of it, it's pretty boring. There were scenes, especially toward the middle of the movie, in which I kept glancing down at the movie clock, which seemed to go really slowly in those scenes. The whole thing felt like a string of clips just thrown together rather than a movie. Except for two or three amusing moments, and the wave scene, the movie is flat, shallow, unemotional, soul-lacking, backbone-lacking, non-moving,…heck, I can go on all day about it.

The movie starts of with siblings Sokka and Katara, who are members of a water tribe, find Aang, young a successor to a long line of avatars, who has been frozen in ice for a hundred years. Now, Aang must help stop the fire nation from conquering the water, earth, and air nations. Sound simple, but there is a lot of stuff going on along the way, and it's just, well, confusing, to put it mildly. And I had to suffer all the way through it to get to the cool finale wave scene.

A movie with very little soul and emotional core should have at least something that can somewhat save it. Unfortunately, Airbender doesn't have much of anything that can look or feel really good, let alone save the movie. The special effects are not bad, but they are obviously low to medium-budget, nowhere near where they need to be for this type of movie. The acting is stiff, and the tone is not uninspiring. The music is good, though. The movie plays pretty much like a video game, with a poor, incomprehensible plot (even real video games have comprehensible plots). I know M. Night Shyamalan has been going downhill lately, but I feel sorry for him. I really think people should stop pounding him so hard. He just needs to get back on his feet, that's all. He needs to start pulling it together and really work. After doing a string of medium-budget drama thrillers of his own formula, he is given special effects and a different type of project, but it seems as if he really didn't know what to do. He can't do that anymore if he wants to recover his reputation.

My Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)

Tangled (2010)

Review - Tangled

[9/10 · 31 August 2012]

I loved Disney when I was a kid. After the blue and white Disney logo (which has been changed since then), I would sit back and enjoy adventure, fantasy, castles, romance, sword fights, songs, magic spells, talking animals, and...well, you get the idea! I used to watch and re-watch several of their animated films. I have to admit, even now that I'm no longer a Disney lover, I still have to admit that I still consider many of their old animated films (including the ones I've listed above) to be good. In fact, I've given many of these films either three, three-and-a-half, or four star ratings. Nowadays, the only animated Disney films I've really been interested in have been Pixar films. But I have to admit, I really enjoyed Tangled, which I saw for the first time last week.

At the beginning, a queen is gravely ill, but is cured by the powers of a magic flower. Soon afterward, she bears a baby girl, Rapunzel, who actually inherits the magic flower's powers. However, baby Princess Rapunzel is kidnapped in the middle of the night by Mother Gothel, who wants to stay young via the magic healing powers within Rapunzel's hair, so she raises Rapunzel in a tower. Now a teenager, Rapunzel's hair is extremely long, and she has spent her entire life in the tower, and is curious about the outside world. One day, a thief named Flynn Rider, who is on the run, scales the tower and hides inside, and is taken captive by Rapunzel. She hides the tiara he has recently stolen and agrees to give it back only if he takes her to the place where the floating lights appear on her birthday each year. On this journey, she truly discovers the outside world, and, eventually, who she really is.

The story isn't original, and it's a bit predictable, but that's not a problem at all. Besides, this is true for many of Disney's animated films. But it's a good story, and Disney takes it and applies unique and memorable elements and charm to it, and some songs too. Disney even draws ideas and elements from some of its previous films. I think it's safe to say that Tangled is a mix of past and present in terms of Disney. It contains a lot of old Disney-type elements, formats, and methods of storytelling among other things, but with the application of modern CGI animation, and some other modern elements.

I was expecting this film to be geared more towards kids, but it's actually a good film for anyone. It is very much a family movie. Sure, there are some kid-oriented elements, and some slapstick humor that the kids would enjoy, but there are also things that adults would appreciate; even the more childish elements I just mentioned are not so extreme, and are perfectly enjoyable for adults. The film has a lot of good humor, but it also has a good sense of character, story, depth, and emotion. The characters are not flat, but are actually very good, and so are the relationships between them. The characters are truly lovable, especially Flynn and Rapunzel (and of these two, especially the latter), and offer genuine emotion. Their attitudes and personalities contain both older and modern elements. There are even a couple of hilarious sidekicks - a chameleon named Pascal and a horse named Maximus (my favorite of which was the latter).

CGI technology and effects have progressed even further since this film came out, but still, the animation in this film is beautiful. Everything is well designed, and with great detail and scope - the characters, the scenery, Rapunzel's hair...everything. And this animation is not just eye candy - it's used wisely, and it actually works well with the script and helps with the emotion and narrative, like it's supposed to. The film offers some very memorable things (characters, scenes, images, and much more) including a truly unforgettable, visually beautiful, and emotionally powerful scene involving floating lanterns.

The voice actors all put on good performances, especially Mandy Moore as Rapunzel. They all really bring their characters to life. The music in this film is good, both the songs and the standard underscore. The songs could have been better, but they are pretty good and perfectly enjoyable as they are, especially "When Will My Life Begin?" (sung by Rapunzel about five minutes into the film) and "I See the Light" (sung by Rapunzel and Flynn during the lantern scene I mentioned in the last paragraph). I really have to give the filmmakers a major thumbs up for Rapunzel herself. She is very well designed (especially her hair), and is absolutely beautiful. And not only that, she is hot. Her personality and liveliness are very attractive as well, and she really captures the heart. She and Flynn are great together, and their romantic relationship is handled very well - it's not corny, it's actually charming and emotional (and, yes, with bits of humor here and there).

The film is good as it is, but it still could have been better. The one criticism I do have is that there are some things about the story and characters, especially in the third act, that I think could have been handled better and given more depth, and should have involved more character complexity. However, despite this, the film works, and it does have a pretty good sense of depth, character, humor, and emotion as it is. It combines and balances all of its elements pretty well. You laugh when you're supposed to, cry when you're supposed to, etc.

Overall, Tangled isn't great, but it's good, and, in my opinion, one of the best Disney animated features in years. It's funny, charming, clever, witty, solid, and full of heart and soul, and I'm actually considering buying the DVD.

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of****)

John Carter (2012)

Review - John Carter

[7/10 · 4 August 2012]

My Rating: *** (out of ****)

I saw John Carter in the theater on Friday, March 14. I've never read the books that the movie is based on, but based on the reviews I've skimmed, I had pretty low expectations for the film. And a lot of the negative aspects I sort of expected of the film were confirmed. Overall, I didn't like the film, but I did sort of enjoy it a little, sort of as a guilty pleasure, almost. The CGI is great, and very convincing, and I enjoyed the visual experience. As for the story and other important aspects, the film is a bit weak. There are many flaws in the film; there's no denying that. The story is derivative, and it suffers from a somewhat sloppy and slightly convoluted plot. Overall, in my opinion, it's basically a two-and-a-half star (out of four stars) film, but it hits enough high notes and sustains enough energy along the way to be enjoyable as a sci-fi blockbuster and scrape a three star rating (and a 7 on IMDb) from me.

The movie is about John Carter, a Civil War veteran who is trying to lead a normal life. He is locked up for refusing to join the Army, but he escapes and is pursued. After a bit of action, he hides in a cave, in which he encounters someone holding a medallion. When Carter touches the medallion, he is transported to Mars, where the lower gravity enables him to leap incredible heights. His first encounter with the natives are with the tall, green-skinned, four- armed, horned Thorks. Soon, he ends up rescuing a princess, Dejah Thoris, of another native group on the planet called the "red" humanoids, and he soon learns of the civil war going on between that group and the other group, the "blue" humanoids.

The director, Andrew Stanton, has previously directed animated films, such as Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and this is his first live-action movie, which may have contributed to the flaws in the movie. Like I said, the movie is very flawed. It's somewhat sloppy, and a bit confusing at times, and not fully coherent (but it's not incoherent). The progression of the story and the interrelation and connection of everything in it doesn't completely fit, and is not really how it should have been. A few things actually felt to me like they were almost thrown together. And in a few ways, it felt almost like a cartoon. However, the movie does maintain acceptable coherency, etc., and it maintains a level of energy that kept me at least somewhat entertained; surprisingly, I never got bored during this movie. The movie is a bit confusing at times, and there are a few twists, and I had a bit of trouble keeping track of some names and stuff, but it doesn't really matter, because it's pretty easy to understand the overall plot. In fact, I actually left the theater at one point to go to the restroom, and I came back three minutes later, but it didn't matter because it was pretty easy for me to pick up on what was basically happening.

There are some positive things that I can say about the movie. The visuals are great, and everything in the movie is very well portrayed with the CGI, and in pretty good detail. The movie introduces a new culture/world/etc., although it doesn't stand out as a character within itself, like the new world in Avatar did. But it's still pretty nice. I also liked the ships; they were very well designed. In fact, all the special effects were good. Dejah Thoris is very pretty, and she's a highlight of the movie. I liked the cast of the movie, especially Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins. I also somewhat liked the music score. The story, plot, progression, development, and pacing all needed to be much better.

Overall, I didn't particularly like the movie, but it was better than I thought it would be. I found it a bit enjoyable, although I would definitely not recommend it for any awards or special recognition or anything. If fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is forgotten in the near future. In my opinion, it's basically a two-and-a-half star movie, but it does hit enough high notes to be a bit enjoyable as a sci-fi blockbuster and to scrape (although barely) a three star rating from me. Although, it's not a movie that I could really watch over and over again; once was really enough for me.

For more reviews, visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Review - The Shawshank Redemption

[10/10 · 18 July 2012]

The Shawshank Redemption is currently number one on the IMDb Top 250 list. I don't particularly agree with that, but it is a truly great movie nonetheless. It is moving and compelling, and it touches the heart and soul.

The story is set in the 1940s, and it involves Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins), a young man who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover and is sentenced to life in the Shawshank Prison. As one would expect, he is very unhappy at first, but then he leans that there's something deeper that nobody can take away from you: hope. As the story unfolds, over the years, Andy eventually becomes very influential within the prison and gains the respect of other inmates, especially "Red" (Morgan Freeman), with whom he develops a special friendship.

The story isn't original or creative, and it's relatively simple, and a bit predictable, but it's compelling, moving, and memorable, and there's a bit more to it which I won't go into. The movie puts the viewer right into the footsteps, experiences, and emotions of the characters. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman put on great performances. They really bring out their characters and offer true depth and emotion. One of the major moral messages of the movie is that a person may be imprisoned, even for life, but the spirit can never truly be imprisoned. The movie conveys this moral message very strongly, and it truly touches the heart and soul.

I am very glad I watched this movie. It is a truly emotional experience.

I Am (III) (2010)

Review - I Am

[10/10 · 10 July 2012]

I saw I Am at a screening a few weeks before it came out in theaters. After the film, Tom Shadyac himself entered the auditorium and answered any questions we viewers had. I Am is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Well, I can admit that it could have been better in terms of a movie, but the subject matter is great, and Tom Shadyac is totally correct.

Tom Shadyac has mostly been known for directing comedies, such as Ace Ventura and Bruce Almighty, and making money from the successes of his movies. He was behaving more or less like many people with that much money do, especially filmmakers - just grabbing for money. However, after suffering a terrible bicycle accident resulting in a concussion and a very near death, Shadyac began to realize the true values in life, and how his wrong capitalist lifestyle had been. As a result, he made this documentary. Now, there have been many statements, speculations, documentaries, etc. on problems with our world, but Tom Shadyac's is different. He actually goes deeper looking for a common cause for all of these other problems.

Humans have evolved and formed a society based on competition. As a matter of fact, we base our lifestyles, customs, etc. too much upon competition - making money, the economy, fighting, etc. However, other animals - fish, birds, deer, you name it - have taken a more natural way of life - cooperation. Tom points out evidence to this in several natural scenarios, typical stuff, yet with an element to it that I have never really noticed before. He shows us a few examples such as some schools of fish and a group of deer, in which essences of democracy and cooperation are clearly evident. We, humans, like I said before, have come to value competition more than cooperation - money, work, etc. I'm not saying, and nor is Tom, that we should stop being competitive altogether and become totally cooperative. All we're saying is that we need to also value cooperation more, and establish a better balance between competition and cooperation/love.

Wow, I am pretty bad at explaining this, especially since it has now been a long time since I saw the film. However, I do still remember it - well, mostly the overall message. It really can't be fully explained - it must be seen. Yes, this documentary is a must-see for everybody - every single person, from every culture, every race, every region, etc. - who has any access to movie theaters, or some means of watching movies. There is some ridiculous stuff in the film, mostly concerning science, etc., but even so, a lot of the film is good, and the deep message of it is strong and important. Even if you end up hating it, just go see it anyway, and just listen and watch. Then, afterward, start acting upon what you just saw - even the smallest actions have an effect, on everything.

What's wrong with the world? A lot of things. What's right with the world? I Am. You are.

My Rating: **** (out of ****)

For more reviews, visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com

Deep Impact (1998)

Review - Deep Impact

[10/10 · 9 July 2012]

Deep Impact is an excellent title for this equally excellent movie, and it fits the movie both physically and emotionally. This movie came out not long before Armageddon, but it seems like it was pretty much pounded and bypassed. I think the summer movies that came out after it stole a lot of the thunder, which Deep Impact deserved. The critics were also a bit harsh on it, and I don't think they should've been (but that's just my opinion). The apocalyptic disaster concept is similar to that of Armaggedon, but instead of an asteroid in collision course with the earth, it's a comet, and it's a great movie. Yes, it is. I got it from the library on DVD and watched it, and I loved it.

The story starts out as Leo Biederman (Elijah Wood) in Richmond, Virginia, discovers an uncharted object in the night sky and report it to an astronomer in Arizona, who determines that it's a comet and it's on a trajectory that will bring it into collision with the earth. While driving to release this news, the astronomer is killed in a car accident. A year later, in Washington D. C., MSNBC news reporter Jenny Lerner (Téa Leoni) is investigating the resignation of U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Alan Rittenhouse (James Cromwell), who says he's resigned because his wife is sick. But Jenny, as she investigates further, comes to think he's been cheating on his wife with someone called Ele, and resigned because he was about to be found out. Soon, however, at her computer at the news station, and then at a press conference at which the president (Morgan Freeman) makes an address, Jenny learns her error: it's not a mistress named Ele, it's E. L. E. (Extinction Level Event), specifically the comet we learned about at the beginning of the movie. After this, the story really starts to develop, leading to a movie full of emotion, soul, great plot points, recurring themes, and much more.

There have been many different types of apocalyptic disaster thrillers, with many different types of plot, tone, characters, and action. Deep Impact takes an excellent approach at the story. It allows one to feel the emotion of the movie, enjoy the special effects, and the action near the end, and at same time feel the emotion of the characters, and still feel the great effect on everybody worldwide. It has an excellent tone and balance. It has very dynamic and developed story lines, and great themes, including, especially in the second half of the movie, the value in life, in the world, in the environment (not mentioned in the film, but can be felt), etc. It even gets a bit existential toward the end, which I like. All of the story lines are fully appreciated, an none really outdoes the other. They balanced them very well - the Jenny Lerner storyline, the Leo Biederman storyline, and all the others. Also, the movie was well- cast, and I thought it was well-acted, and the characters were very well set up and developed. Man, it's really hard to put into words what I felt about the movie.

My viewing experience of this film was great. This film started out, and then gradually captured my interest and liking more and more, all the while developing it's dynamic tone, characters, story, and emotion. The actors, even the well known Morgan Freeman, really blended into their roles - I really saw them as their characters. By the time the movie ended, I loved it. It also has good special effects which I enjoyed, but the core of the film, what I really loved about it, was the story, the soul, and the emotion. The movie certainly pries deep into emotions during it's nearly two hour running time. It has everything a great movie really needs. Even the action at the midpoint of the film and near the end was good, it has the strong emotional and soul-filled background and tone to back it up – it's not just full-out summer action - and it actually matters what happens to the characters during these action scenes. What if the world really were coming to an end soon? This movie really pries deep into the emotional aspect of that question. Deep Impact is an underrated, misunderstood gem.

My Rating: **** (out of ****)

For more reviews, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com

Unbreakable (2000)

Review - Unbreakable

[8/10 · 9 July 2012]

A year after the hit success of The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan re-casts Bruce Willis and re-applies his unique film formula for Unbreakable. He succeeds in providing a second demonstration of the very unique suspenseful and emotional dramatic mystery thrillers he had become known for. He sets an excellent balance between supernaturality and the real world while also focusing heavily on character and family dynamics. In several ways, besides the casting of Bruce Willis, the film is very similar to The Sixth Sense – for example, the plot follows a very similar formula with similar types of plot points, and both movies take place in Philadelphia. But the formula is applied to a different genre. Also, Bruce Willis is not the only star. He is starring along with Samuel L. Jackson, whom he also starred with in Die Hard 3.

Bruce Willis is now bald, and his character, David Dunn, a stadium security guard, is not a walking dead person, like Malcolm Crowe in Sixth Sense. David is very much alive, even following a lethal train wreck at the inciting incident near the beginning, in which all the passengers die except for him. What's more, he was completely unbroken not a single scratch, let alone any injuries. Soon after, he finds a note on his windshield asking him a question which really starts him thinking about his seemingly lucky survival, especially after he meets the writer of the note, Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson).

Elijah is a gallery owner who loves, and finds importance in, comic books, especially those about superheroes. He even finds connections between comic book stories and real life, and is a firm believer in it. All his life, Elijah has had a disorder in which his bones are extremely weak, easily breakable, for which he was called "Mr. Glass" by other kids while growing up. He wonders that if he is at one end of the spectrum, where his bones break easily, couldn't there be somebody at the other end of the spectrum, who never gets sick, never gets hurt, is practically unbreakable? This is why he seeks out David, and finally meets him about half an hour into the film, after learning the details of his survival from the train wreck. After this, the story begins to pick up speed and venture more into the concept of the film: superheroes, comic books, and possible unbreakablilty (David). The movie does contain a few elements from comic book stories (but not in written boxes), all mixed with Shyamalan's formula, reality, suspense, and other elements. It's a cool story.

I have to say, I kind of like M. Night Shyamalan's type of films. I don't really love any of his films, but they are worth watching, especially Signs. He has a very unique way of storytelling, and he provides the correct type balance between character, emotion, suspense, reality, supernaturality, and all other aspects. He knows what mysteries to answer or to leave hanging. He knows how to make something or some event believable even though it would never happen in real life (en example in Unbreakable is when David's son, Josepsh, has his father's gun and wants to shoot him – which he doesn't – to prove that he is unbreakable). He knows the best time to reveal little bits of important information, adding to the suspense, and he is great at placing important plot points and symbolic things within seemingly everyday appearance, dialogue, and description.

The concept, which is prying into reality, is not always or totally noticed believed amongst the characters and their families, but it is evident, and it really reflects in their emotions and behaviors. And resolutions are also strong and clearly reflected and evident emotionally in character and family dynamics. Shyamalan is an expert at this. And his formula can probably be used for almost any subject matter, even things in plain real life. I know he's gone downhill lately, especially with Airbender, but he has been successful in the past, and I'm betting he's still got potential now. I think he should really use his potential and get back up to where he was, and that people should stop pounding and avoiding him and just give him a chance, and acknowledgment for his four best films (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, and The Village).

Avatar (2009)

Review - Avatar

[7/10 · 8 July 2012]

I missed the initial theatrical release of Avatar in Devember of 2009, but I got the DVD the following July and watched the movie on my television at home, and I was quite blown away. My liking for it has decreased. How I feel about the story, characters, and everything else about the movie is pretty much exactly the same, but to a lesser degree; I think it's okay.

The story is set in the year 2154, and it involves an RDA mission to an earth-sized moon called Pandora. We enter this new world through the eyes of Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who goes on this mission on short notice. For a while, the humans had some success in interacting with the Na'vi via "avatars", remote-controlled bodies. However, relations between the natives and the human have turned bad, and all interactions between them stopped. However, Jake eventually meets the local native tribe, falls in love with them and the new world, and ends up fighting against the RDA in defense of the new people and world he now considers his home.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the CGI is visually stunning and almost flawless, and with extreme detail. In fact, the movie goes beyond having great visuals. It introduces a wonderful new world. It has a lot of earth-like characteristics, but it also has a lot of new and exotic characteristics (and even some uniqueness in the familiar characteristics) the combination of which is a beautiful world. Overall, the world is something we've all seen before, yet never seen before at the same time; simultaneously old and new. And it's all portrayed excellently with brilliant scope and spectacle. The same is true about the natives and the avatars. Like the new world, they are portrayed excellently with the CGI with utmost detail. The natives are humanoids, but they're ten to twelve feet tall, blue-skinned, and golden-eyed, and they even have tails. They are an interesting blend of human, alien, and feline. The same is true about the avatars. The Na'vi were well designed, especially Neytiri, who is beautiful. I found Jake and Neytiri to be very likable, and a great couple, and their combined physical appearance and personalities give them a likability that pierces through the special effects.

That's not to say that everything about the film is perfect. The story is extremely basic, derivative, clichéd, and predictable, and a bit corny. The characters, aside from Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, are pretty shallow, especially the villains, who are very one-dimensional (but effective). Also, the dialogue is very clichéd and a bit corny, almost like something out of a kids movie. However, despite these flaws, the movie works. The story clichéd, predictable, etc., but it's coherent, well-structured, well-paced, solid, and consistent, and it flows. The characters, although lacking a bit in development, are effective. The three protagonists Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, should have been better in terms of development, but they are effective and I was able to have a sufficient emotional attachment to them and their relationships. Even the dialogue, weak as it is, gets its job done.

We've seen this story a million times, but never like this. The story could be considered a sci-fi version of Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves, set in a new fantasy world. Just like in original Star Wars trilogy, Avatar brings some new life into old clichés. In my opinion, the original Star Wars trilogy does a much better job at this, but Avatar does an okay job at it. The story combines elements of Pocahontas, Titanic, Braveheart, Star Wars, and even The Matrix.James Cameron also borrows from some of his own films, including Aliens (military/technology) and Titanic (the love story, and the way the movie is structured).

Also, the new world isn't simply in the movie to look nice. In my opinion, it actually feels alive, and it's very much a character itself in the film. I want to make it clear that I was not duped or blinded by the visuals. I felt that Cameron actually used the visuals and new world to evoke emotion, and also used them as part of the story itself. In terms of the script, the storytelling is basic, by the numbers, but I also felt that a lot of the storytelling was within these great visuals and the world, and in the way it was combined into the story. The effects helped me get immersed into the new world and helped me care about the characters and the story. Also, the film has great sound - quality, effects, editing, etc. These sound aspects also added a bit to the emotion and immersing effects of the story. I also liked James Horner's score, which, in my opinion, is some of the best work of Horner's career.

I felt that a lot of what made the story enjoyable was within the simplicity, and in the details. And, in my opinion, while the film doesn't have much intelligence, it does have a little bit, which very few other movies like this have. It's actually a halfway decent blockbuster, and it does not contain the obnoxiousness and imbecility of films like Michael Bay's films. Unlike those films, Avatar actually has some heart and soul, and characters that the audience can care about. There are definitely several things that can be criticized - the simple and derivative story, the clichés, the hammy dialogue, and the one-dimensional villains - but a lot can be said in defense of the movie's story aspects (and it has a lot of Cameron elements in it). Besides, these flaws are typical of blockbusters.

I thought the movie was okay. I found it sufficiently emotional, memorable, and entertaining, and it's nice family entertainment. However, the movie that changes movies?? No way.

My Rating: *** (out of ****)

For more reviews, and my complete review of Avatar, please visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com/

Dances with Wolves (1990)

Review - Dances With Wolves

[9/10 · 3 July 2012]

I saw Dances With Wolves for the first time sometime within the last several months. It wasn't as great or memorable as I hoped it would be, but it's pretty good nonetheless.

As the story starts off, we are introduced to Lieutenant John Dunbar, who does something stupid during a Civil War battle and inadvertently leads the Union troops to a victory. As a reward, he is given a post at the western frontier. Upon arriving, he finds the post deserted. Soon however, he starts to befriend a curious local Indian tribe. Gradually, over time earns the trust and respect of these people, and eventually becomes one of them. Along the way, he also falls in love with Stands With A Fist, a white girl raised by the tribe. Also, along the way, he even receives a tribal name, "Dances With Wolves." It's a simple story. It's that old man-befriends-natives-and-turns-against-his-own-people type of story. There's no originality in it whatsoever, and it's almost completely predictable. However, it is very well-told, with soul and emotion. The movie follows Dunbar and allows the viewer to feel his emotions and experiences as he gradually falls in love with the tribe and the land. In terms of the script, and other aspects, the movie is pretty good. The dialogue is pretty good, and the story is well-paced. Performances by Costner and everyone else are good as well, and the actors really bring out their characters. John Barry also composed a great score for the film, which also helped bring out the emotion, mood, and tone of the film.

I do have a few criticisms of the film. My first criticism concerns Mary McDonnel. She was effective as Stands With A Fist, and her performance was good, but there's something about her that took away slightly from my liking for her character. I didn't think she was quite right for her role. Also, I should have had more emotional attachment to her (not that I didn't, but I did feel that it lacked a bit). My second criticism concerns the length of the film. I can see what Costner was trying to do in terms of storytelling, emotion, length of scenes, and all that, but, in my opinion, the film was too long. I have to admit, I liked the film, but I did get bored in some areas. Also, while the character development is solid, I think the story should have gone more into character complexity. The story itself had more potential too. There's hardly any plot at all, but it's enjoyable, but nonetheless, if the movie did have more of a real plot it could have been a lot better. Next, I didn't really feel much tension/worry for the inevitable fight with the American military coming up at the end. I really did need to feel much more of that. Also, while the movie is pretty good, it only has a few memorable aspects about it. It needed more.

Overall, I feel that Dances With Wolves is more of a moral message experience than entertainment. It's not something I'd want to watch more than once, but it's a good movie all the same, definitely worth watching. But it did have a lot more potential.

My Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

For more reviews, visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com

War Horse (2011)

Review - War Horse

[10/10 · 2 July 2012]

I went saw War Horse in the theater in January. I've never read the book that the movie is based on, but I was hoping to like the movie, and I ended up loving it. Steven Spielberg has released some good movies in the past; Indiana Jones (the original trilogy; the fourth was a bit weak), Jurassic Park, Schindler's List – just to name a few. He has declined a bit during the past few years. Now, he's risen back up triumphantly with War Horse. War Horse is entertainment for the heart and soul, and, in my opinion, definitely one of Spielberg's best films to date.

War Horse is the story of an elegant brown stallion, set during the time of World War I. A farmer buys this horse, and his son, Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine), calls him Joey. Albert raises, trains, and develops a strong friendship with the horse. However, as WWI starts, Joey is sold into cavalry. At this point, Albert is too young to enlist in the army and therefore stay with Joey, so for a while, the movie focuses only on the experiences of the horse, in and out of the line of battle. Will they be reunited? (I think you know the answer to that – the movie is pretty predictable.) I won't give away anything else about the story, but there are emotions, tears, etc. (even a few laughs here and there) throughout the film.

The story is not original, and it's pretty clichéd and predictable. However, it works very well. I personally found it overall to be interesting, entertaining, gripping, and emotional. The first forty-five minutes or so of the film are a bit slow, and it's the weakest part of the film. However, like I said, it does establish the essential relationships we need for the rest of the movie, particularly between Albert and Joey. After this first act ends and the second act begins, things start picking up – pace emotion, etc. – and it gets much better. John Williams has returned along with Spielberg, and has composed a very good score for the movie, as he always does.

Visually, the film is amazing, too. The cinematography and visual and special effects are very good, and really contribute to the emotion and tone of the film. The landscapes are very good, and so are the war effects. There are some action scenes that get pretty violent and gory, and the effects are really good here too, but it's still not extreme enough to go above a PG-13 rating (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, though). A couple particular noteworthy examples of the great visuals are the opening and closing shots, especially the latter. And like I said above, these visuals really contribute strongly to the emotion, narrative, and tone of the film.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I'm glad I saw it in the theater. Despite its predictability and unoriginality (for which it gets quite a bit of hate on IMDb), I really found the story to be compelling and emotional. Personally, I don't think a movie has to be original to be good, as long as it's structured well, properly paced, and has sufficient heart, character, story, and emotion to make it a worthwhile experience. The best case is when a movie touches my heart and soul in some way. A good example is The Shawshank Redemption - predictable and unoriginal, yet it really touched my heart and soul, and I found the story compelling, and I loved the movie. Ultimately, whether or not a movie is good is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. For me, personally, I have to personally have a positive overall experience. This movie meets all these criteria well, at least for me. War Horse touched my heart and soul very strongly.

My Rating: **** (out of ****)

For more reviews, visit my website: http://robertsreliablereviews.blogspot.com