moviemanMA Reviews

Don't Breathe (2016)

Don't mess with the blind man

[8/10 · 26 August 2016]

Don't Breathe is a tight, thriller that doesn't let up. There were several parts of the film where I was convinced we were nearing the end, only to be grabbed by the throat and dragged back in. Three young criminals are trying to get out of Detroit and onto bigger and better things. In order to do so they need cash, and lots of it. After receiving information on a potential big score, the group decides to go for it. The target is a blind, Iraq War veteran who is rumored to have $300,000 somewhere in his house. What looks like a cake walk turns into a nightmarish game of cat and mouse that will leave you truly holding your breath until the very end.

Alvarez reunites with Jane Levy, his leading lady from Evil Dead. Levy really wowed me in that film and I was excited to see her in a new role with new scares. While some actors are remembered for their screams in horror films, it's Levy's eyes that stand out. They convey so much emotion, and given that a good amount of this film requires her character to remain silent, she pulls it off brilliantly. Accompanying Levy is veteran actor Stephen Lang as The Blind Man. Lang's screen and stage presence is well documented in productions like Gettysburg, Avatar, and as Col. Jessup in the original stage production of A Few Good Men. His intimidating physique makes him the perfect choice to play this role.

Alvarez assembled a great team of actors, but his best selection might have been behind the camera with cinematographer Pedro Luque. He was the cinematographer for La Casa Muda, (The Silent House) a film that almost doesn't deserve the genius camera-work from Luque. He shot the film to appear like one continuous take and the result is truly unique. He didn't disappoint here either with some great tracking shots and an unforgettable chase scene in the basement.

Luque's images are made even creepier thanks to brilliant sound design. Sound ups are common in horror films, and there are plenty to jump at in this film. While those work great they can be tiresome. I prefer the quiet moments. The shuffling of feet, creaking floor boards, and muffled breathing not only intensify the mood, they force the viewer to fill in the silence with their own imagination. It's like when you here something in your own home and you don't know what it is. You run through every possible scenario until you find the source.

When the credits starting rolling I felt like I myself had spent the night in the house. With a run time of just under 90 minutes, they really jam packed every second of it. While the dialogue isn't anything to write home about (especially the first act), it doesn't detract from the story (I watch for scares, not for the conversations). A fine job all around and hopefully just the beginning of a long career for Alvarez. With two big films under his belt already, I can't wait to see what he has in store for us next!

Slow West (2015)

Where have all the cowboys gone

[6/10 · 6 January 2016]

The western genre can be as unkind as the west itself. If the stars aren't aligned you're in for a bumpy ride. The trail is especially hazardous for filmmakers today. Few try their hand at the old stereotypes. Recently the focus has been on the brutality of the environment and the weird folks one encounters while traversing the wilderness.

Slow West, sadly, is no exception. The photography is gorgeous, but breathtaking landscapes can only do so much. Just watch Tommy Lee Jones' 2014 western The Homesman (now streaming on Netflix) and you'll understand. Lots of beautiful images, but a weird, unappealing story that drags too long and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Slow West follows Jay (Kodi Smit- McPhee), a Scottish native who has come to America in search of his beloved Rose. While on the trail he encounters Silas (Michael Fassbender), an outlaw who takes Jay under his wing to help him journey across the land. Little does Jay know that Silas has other intentions.

While there is a fair amount to like in this film, the bad outweigh the good. For one, we have no idea how much time is passing. I think they tried to make it seem like more time had passed by having Silas give Jay a shave, but it felt awkward and out of place. And while Silas and Jay are very different at the start, as is the case for most duos in the genre, I didn't really see them bond over anything except for one particular scene where Jay figured out how to dry their clothes. Was that enough to win Silas' friendship?

Just when things start clicking between the two main characters we are already at the climax of the film. And that's a shame because the acting isn't that bad. I wanted at least another half hour of character development, especially once the bad guy shows up, played by one of my favorite characters actors Ben Mendelsohn. He has a certain look that he has nailed. That, "I might be cool right now but say the wrong thing and I will go off," look. He had it in last year's Starred Up. His character here comes in too late and there is not enough of him on screen.

For a film with the word, "Slow," in the title, this film moves way too fast. If you look back at other westerns their runtimes are typically in the 110 to 140 minute range. While there are few exceptions (High Noon being one), these stories take time to get through. And that feels right to me. Time was something a lot of cowpokes and frontiersmen had. There was no rush. This film flies to the finish, which us saying something because the landscape forces the characters to take their time. This film sort of cheats by using the forest as a cover for how much land is in front and behind them. But still, the story goes by way too fast. It sets itself up as a big adventure for Jay, but it really only takes about an hour before the big finale begins.

And don't get me started on the ending. I won't spoil it for you but it basically makes this entire film a wash. Nothing gained. I don't want to say I was mad, but I certainly wasn't pleased. I might have enjoyed it more if there was more filler before it happened, but it felt like I just waisted an hour and a half.

While I've done a good amount of trash talking about this, I can't say it's a bad film. It's just not for me. The camera work is good, the acting is solid (I'm a sucker for Fassbender), and the effects are fine. I guess I'm a little snobby about my westerns. I hate seeing the genre that I was raised on treated as a sideshow attraction. For a while I thought the genre, much like the west itself, had been conquered. Mapped out, drilled for oil, with nothing left but reminders of what it used to be. Luckily there are still a few gold nuggets left in those hills. While Slow West isn't the film the genre deserves, at least it tried.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Let's enjoy this while it lasts

[9/10 · 6 January 2016]

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is without a doubt the greatest piece of Star Wars content to be released by a major studio since Return of the Jedi. I'd go as far as to say it's one of the best science fiction films to be released in that time frame as well. J.J. Abrams, the creator of Lost and more recently the man who revived an aging Star Trek franchise, outdid himself. Forget all of the hoopla surrounding George Lucas' distaste for the new film. He had his time, and when he was called upon to continue the saga he disappointed the fans. J.J. answered the call and hit a home run.

The film starts 30+ years after Return of the Jedi. A new darkness has taken hold of the galaxy in the form of The First Order. The group is picking up right where the Empire left off. It's sole mission: total domination of the galaxy, destroying anyone who stands in their way. Like the Empire, conformity is their model. Standing up to the school yard bully are the familiar rebels, this time in the form of the Resistance, allies to the Republic. I don't want to go too far into the plot as I think it best that you go in as fresh as possible (I was so close to making it!), but I assure you that this new crop of characters are the best since the original trilogy.

Abrams introduces us to several characters that within the first few minutes of screen time have more character and range than any and all of the prequel characters. Poe Dameron, Finn, Kylo Ren, Rey, and BB-8 have gone from faces in a movie trailer to household names virtually overnight. My brother said it best that BB-8 has more personality than all of the prequel characters combined, and he's right. These new characters have goals, ambition, emotions we can relate to, AND these characters fit in the Star Wars universe. At the end of the film I was genuinely curious about what would happen to them in the next film.

Characters aside, there's a lot to love about this film. My one wish going into the film was to have a fair amount of in camera effects and a plethora of aliens actually walking about. While it's unreasonable to expect there to be a Star Wars film completely void of major CGI characters and effects, boy did Abrams do right in my book. The film is full of great costumes, animatronics, and in camera effects that fans of the original films will get weak at the knees over. It felt like being back in a place with living trees, dry deserts, and frozen plains, not just a green screen with actors wearing sensor suits (though the film is not void of that).

So with great characters and living breathing aliens on distant planets, what else does this new film offer that the prequels were lacking? Story. The prequels had a lot of issues in regards to story. Pointless sequences that went on far too long to achieve very little, details that were both boring and disappointing to hear, and the atrocious display of lightsaber fights showcasing stunt choreography instead of the characters emotions. Lightsaber duels were representative of the struggle between two characters. Obi Wan and Darth Vader in A New Hope, and then Luke versus Vader in both Empire and Return. Those fights stood for the struggle against good and evil, an externalization of their feelings. The prequels had double sided sabers, acrobatic Jedis, and the coup de grace of lightsaber atrocities, the spinning quad sabers of General Grievous. This was my main gripe with the prequels, and I was really hoping would be corrected in the new film, and thank the maker it was. Without giving too much away, there is a lightsaber fight in the new film that is possibly the best in the entire series. It's full of emotion and representative of the struggles inside the characters.

There is an endless stream of outrage over what was done with the prequels, so I won't go into great lengths. There is one thing that couldn't be helped, regardless of who was writing or directing, and it's something J.J. did not have to deal with. One of the problems the prequels had to deal with is that the audience knows where the films needs to take us for Episode IV. That's the problem any filmmaker faces when making a prequel. Suffice to say J.J. and legendary screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan had virtually free reign about where to take the franchise. This film strikes the perfect balance of acknowledging the original trilogy while not being afraid to take it in a new direction. Upon my second viewing I noticed a few more nods to the original films. They were subtle and didn't take me out of the story.

So here we are, entering 2016 with our seventh Star Wars film in the can, and lord knows how many more Star Wars iterations will be released in the coming years. I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years times we have twice as many films in the Star Wars catalog to talk about. I don't know if that's a good thing, but only time will tell. For the moment, let's take a moment and enjoy what we have. J.J. has given us a wildly entertaining film that will be torn apart, raised up, and talked about for years to come.

Her (2013)

There doesn't seem to be anyone around

[10/10 · 26 March 2014]

Spike Jonze's latest feature film Her tackles the subject of being alone. Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore Twombly, a man separated from his wife who spends most of his time working, checking emails, playing video games, and talking to his computer. He is not the only person partaking in this ritual. The majority of the characters and extras in the film are talking to their ear pieces and interacting with their computers, or OS (operating system). Things change when OS-1 comes out, introducing the world's first artificially intelligent OS. Shortly thereafter we are introduced to Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johnansson). This first encounter will forever change Theodore's life.

What is so wonderful about Her is the world that Spike creates. It's a world exactly like ours. The key for me is how nonchalantly his characters use their tech. People walk around with tech sticking out of their ears, talking to themselves, and going about their business completely oblivious to what's happening around them. We have, "interactions," and, "connections," with other people through our devices. We walk past strangers who are using the same tech and having the same experience. We rely so much on these devices to go through day to day living.

Spike ingeniously takes this obsession with tech and gives it a personality. Instead of talking to Siri about a new email, listening to music, or taking a picture (because you may never see a sunset again!!!), Theodore partakes in all of these rituals with Samantha. So he's not just listening to music. He's listening to a song Samantha picked out (or composed) just for him. He's not just taking a picture of a sunset. Instead he and Samantha can experience it with him. They converse about what they're doing instead of just mulling about aimlessly.

By giving the tech a personality and the ability to think, it makes the experience of being alone not so lonely. Theodore and Samantha overcome many obstacles in their relationship, the first being that Samantha isn't just an OS. Samantha is, well, Samantha. A free thinking, super inquisitive mind that has wants and needs and can be happy and afraid all at once. It's brilliant how the outside world views their relationship. In short, it's perfectly okay to have this relationship. Not everyone agrees and those people who are hesitant cause some doubt to creep into Theodore's head, but don't all new technologies have people that oppose its use? Let's face it, 10 or 15 years ago the idea of meeting a person online seemed pretty ridiculous. Nowadays not only is it acceptable, it's become a primary alternative to meeting someone new.

This near tangible relationship with a non tangible being is, at first glance, odd. There is a scene where Theodore can't find Samantha. His connection to the server isn't going through. He frantically searches for connectivity, like a parent looking for a lost child at Disney. We don't look at this as crazy. We can sympathize because we do the same thing, like when we search for free wifi or that elusive 4G bar we desperately need for a phone call. Heaven help us if for one minute we can't receive an update or check our email, for the alternative is...alone time...

The inability to spend time by ourselves could be brought on by the pace at which we live our lives. Faster, stronger, newer, and bigger. Think of how long it took mankind to develop boats, then trains, planes, and rocket ships. Now think about how quickly we move today, both in physical and mental space. We are constantly, "progressing," because our technology allows us to do so. So when we have a lull in activity, our minds start to wander, and that is not natural for today's standards. When Theodore can't connect to the server, he is left alone, and the thought of being alone scares the hell out of him.

In the end that's what Theodore is looking for. In a way so is Samantha. We are constantly looking for distractions and a companion so we don't have to be alone. No matter how many friends, likes, retweets, pins, or subscribers we have, there is always that fear of being alone. I know this doesn't necessarily include everyone. There are people, fully functioning people, who don't require these needs, but for the most part, we can all agree that our world will never be the same because of our technology.

The connections that matter most are not the ones made by circuits, microchips, and displays. They are made with each other. They are made by communicating face to face. They are made with our senses. They are made with our memories. Spike could have taken this film is a variety of directions, and the one he chose couldn't have made me happier. You should experience it on your own. You just might learn something about yourself.

Tonight when I take the train home, I'll throw on my ear buds and play melancholy music, just like Theodore Twombly. I'll flick through my news feed or maybe take an Instagram of a cool angle on the railway. Or maybe I'll just sit there instead. I'll let my mind wander, drifting in and out of rational and irrational thought. I could revisit a memory or plan out what to eat for dinner.

With my iPhone, only so much is possible. With me, anything is possible.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Coffee Table Movie

[5/10 · 22 July 2013]

Nicolas Winding Refn has made a career of shocking audiences, for better and for worse. Through all of his work there is one word I keep repeating: hypnotic. I've seen five of his films and all of them put me in a trance. The stories, the camera work, the ethereal music beds, and the performances. Everyone involved seems to know what Refn is aiming to make, and when it works we inevitably figure it out.

In the case of Only God Forgives, I wish we knew what was going on.

Sometimes a film seems like it has one or two inside jokes that the characters get but you don't necessarily understand. I feel like if I watched this with the cast and crew they would smirk at certain moments and nod at a particular line. I, on the other hand, would be left scratching my head.

This is a film that after several viewings, probably similar to Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, would make more and more sense, and maybe even create an appreciation for what is being done. Some movies can pull it off. 2001: A Space Odyssey is one such a film. it gets better and better with each viewing. Though The Master doesn't quite deserve a revisit just yet (it does have quality performances), this film falls completely flat.

It's a shame. A real shame. Refn is one of the most interesting filmmakers out there and his body of work shows it. He turns violence into an art form, where it's not just about special effects and blood curdling screams. He doesn't let violence carry on and on, barreling through walls and off of cars. Fighting hurts everyone, both the victim and the assailant. It's a very emotional experience with lots of blood, sweat, and swelling. That's what we saw in Drive, Valhalla Rising, and Bronson. That's not what we see here with OGF.

Now, I'm not advocating violence by any means. Violence when photographed and presented correctly can show humans at their most primal level. Here we have a lot of violent people, but there's no motive, nothing driving them to such violent acts. In Drive, the Driver is on his own. He must fight to survive, but he would rather use his wheels do the talking. The villain is an old, mean gangster with no patience to rant and torture his victims. His violent acts are done with purpose and precision. In OGF we have a lot of violent people, none of which we ever truly get to know.

Julian (Gosling) is a fighter (maybe) who runs a Thai boxing gym as a front for his mothers drug trafficking. He doesn't say much (less than in Drive if you can believe it) but he has a look about him that says...well, I'm not sure what it says. He's almost like a puppy. When his brother is killed his mother comes to seek revenge, hoping that Julian will help out. He doesn't. We find out later that he may or may not have been jealous of his brother's relationship with his mother, but we're never told anything that is the honest to God truth. You can't trust any of the characters...except the detective who wields a katana and slices up everything that moves.

I really don't want to go into the details because there isn't much and most of it is speculative. There are a few dream sequences (maybe) and one fight with Gosling, who may or may not be a good fighter. He sometimes has a temper but he also has a good side. His mother has no redeeming qualities and is pretty nasty to everyone. The detective leads a pretty wholesome life when he isn't stabbing, slicing, impaling, or gouging his way through the movie.

So the takeaways? Well, it looks pretty. This would probably serve better as a coffee table book than an actual movie. I would rather just look at a few images than an hour and half of synth tones, neon lights, and sword slashing. Honestly, watch the trailer. It tells a much more precise story and is more easy to understand. Hell, the trailer is actually pretty awesome (there is also a red band trailer that is more like a short Refn film).

Only God Forgives isn't an unforgivable sin. I don't even think it needs an apology. Refn clearly made a film that HE wanted to make. He has earned it in my book. Now that he has it out of his system I'm hoping he gets back to basics and starts making more films like Drive, Bronson, and Pusher. The ball is in your court Mr. Refn.

World War Z (2013)

Don't give up

[8/10 · 22 July 2013]

At the end of World War Z, just as the credits began rolling, a gentleman, scratch that, an idiot spoke up from the back of the theatre exclaiming, "What? That sucked! The book was nothing like that! Booo!" I'm sure he scurried away back home, logged online, and began tweeting, posting, and blogging, furthering his rant. Much like my response to him at the theatre, I hope he receives silence in return.

It's true, World War Z is nothing like the book. The book is told from the point of view AFTER the war. It's a "historical," account of what happened during the war. Rather than make a mockumentary with flashbacks, which would have been the wrong decision in my opinion, the filmmakers decided to put us right in the middle of the action.

When adapting a piece of literature it is impossible to bring every page, every paragraph, every nuance onto the screen. Some have come close depending on the material, but for the most part, they all have to take their own creative licenses. After all, it's called an "adaptation," for a reason, otherwise they would call it a copy or mimic.

Where World War Z works (that's a mouthful) and where so many others fail is that just because the world slips into total and utter chaos, doesn't mean that governments, military, and law enforcement agencies go away. Quite the opposite. If anything, these scenarios bring out the best of all of them. We see generals, UN delegates, and scientists trying to solve complex issues that they don't know anything about. Rather than going into hiding, they act. Society doesn't crumble. Bands of cannibals and leather strapped gangs don't patrol the streets with necklaces made of teeth. People do what they can to survive, and the higher ups try their best to find a fast and effective solution.

At first, I thought the movie started too fast. How could something this violent and concentrated go undetected, but after a while I got it. The opening montage of news reports said it all. How many of us listen to everything we hear on the news? Exactly. So much goes undetected while we focus on issues that effect us immediately. It's too late when the virus touches US soil. Not even social media can keep up with it.

As far as zombie movies go this one is pretty great. Though I think 28 Days Later takes the cake in terms of realism, in-camera effects, and sheer terror, this one holds its own. Brad Pitt plays a former UN investigator who is traveling with his family just as the zombie attack on Philadelphia unfolds. The film goes from 0-60 before you take a sip of your Coke. This is a fast paced, edge of your seat thrill ride led by one of the finest actors of this generation (Pitt's acting ability is far too underrated and lost in the kerfuffle of tabloid news).

For those of you who stare at the ticket window debating whether or not to see a film in 3D or standard, you might want to spend the extra few dollars to see this one in 3D (I know it's asking a lot, but maybe you can sneak some candy or a bottle of water to offset the concession stand price - deal with it). I tend to air on the side of "screw it, I want to see it in 3D." Now not every movie NEEDS to be seen in 3D, hell there are really only a couple that absolutely have to be seen in all three dimensions (Avatar and maybe Life of Pi), but this one really surprised me. 3D is not about things jumping out at you, but it's about layers. Luckily this film has both. Big chase scenes in Philly, particles floating about in South Korea, and tracking shots in Jerusalem make this one of the 3D events of the year. No exaggeration.

Like so many other summer blockbusters before it, civilization is on the brink of extinction and only a handful of experts can save us. What World War Z does that so many have failed is give us hope. Hope that humanity won't dissolve into nothingness. In the face of sheer danger these fighters stand tall, take a deep breath, look the enemy in the eye, and say, "No."

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)

Tough to swallow

[7/10 · 2 February 2012]

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close tells the story of a family living in New York City post 9/11. Oskar and his mother Linda (Thomas Horn and Sandra Bullock respectively) are still coping with the loss of Thomas (Tom Hanks), Oskar's father and Linda's husband. He was the glue that kept the family together, and not that he is gone there is a giant void in both their lives. When Oskar stumbles upon a key, he sees is as one final contact with his father, one final game the two can play. What does the key fit? Where will it take him?

Oskar is a unique child, both in his abilities and inabilities. He was once thought to have Asperger syndrome, a form of autism, though his tests were inconclusive. Regardless, he is a special boy with an imagination as lofty as lofty as his determination to find the elusive key hole for his father. With the help of his grandmother, grandmother's renter (Oscar nominee Max von Sydow), and the entire city of New York, Oskar journeys out into the unknown, hoping to come across the owner of the said key hole, but more so to find out where his father's final game will take him.

This film should come with a warning along with the MPAA's rating. THIS FILM WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR EMOTIONS. It's really not fair at times. A boy with Aspergers loses his father on 9/11 who is played by Tom Hanks, whom EVERYONE loves. The child's mother is played by Sandra Bullock, another of America's sweethearts, throw that on top of a very intense story about love, loss, and self discovery, you've got one heavy emotional cocktail.

I do think this film hits below the belt a few times, but overall I was impressed with the story. It wasn't so much about finding closure for the death of his father, this was a story about a city still reeling from a tragic event. This boy risks a lot going out into the city, greeting strangers to find out if they knew his father or not, only to discover that there is a good in every person, including himself. He was bringing comfort to their lives, be it a shoulder to cry on or a voice to laugh with, he was there.

Horn, Bullock, and Hanks offer up pretty solid performances. Sydow, who received an Oscar nod for the voiceless Renter, gives a nice performance, but I don't know if it was more worthy than say Albert Brooks in Drive or Andy Serkis in The Adventures of Tin Tin. Regardless it's still a great character and offers another angle to the story of Oskar and his father. Horn and Bullock really lock horns in this film, spewing some shocking revelations.

Director Stephen Daldry has a knack for tackling some tough issues. His last two films, both of which garnered Best Picture nods (The Reader and The Hours), ventured into the Holocaust and suicide. Where these films differ is with the characters. They both had very deep, complex characters, which in Extremely Loud the characters are more confused that anything else, or we can't understand as in Oskar's case. Daldry isn't shy to hold punches, but his punches here seemed a little too harsh and more consistent. It wasn't totally abusive but it came close.

It's a tough movie to get through for some more than others, but for those who can handle the subject matter they have the most to gain from watching.

Shame (2011)

Addiction up close and personal

[10/10 · 15 January 2012]

Shame, the real feel bad movie of the year, is only McQueen's second feature film to date. His first film, Hunger, focused on a man who made his life very public when he went on a hunger strike during the 1981 Irish Hunger Strikes. In Shame, McQueen dissects the very personal and often shocking sexual addiction of Brandon Sullivan (Michael Fassbender). Brandon is a well off business man. He has an apartment in New York where he leads a seemingly good life, but hides a dark secret that is on the verge of destroying him. His sex addiction has gone out of control. To make this even more difficult, his sister drops in unexpected and crashes at his place (played by Carey Mulligan). Her lifestyle begins to interfere with his addiction, forcing him to take drastic measures.

Every waking moment is spent towards achieving one goal: orgasm. We see him smile, laugh, engage socially, but when he is alone he is focused, like a junkie going through the routine of drug addiction. Brandon's tools aren't lighters, spoons, and rubber ties. He uses prostitutes, Internet pornography, magazines, or his imagination. Even at work his mind wanders off, either at a passing coworker or something he has looked up on his computer. This is far from a private matter. His addiction is slipping into the open and he knows it. We assume he is aware of his problem. At the beginning of the film we see Brandon lying naked in bed, the sheet pulled over his private area. He lies motionless, only staring at the ceiling above, breathing in and out as if he knows that today is going to be a long day. We know he's not thinking about work. He has one thing and one thing only. Sex.

Most people associate sex with pleasure. I'm sure Brandon has at one time or another had a pleasurable experience during intercourse, but he is long past that stage. During a scene on the subway he spots a woman. She's an attractive woman. She's alone. Vulnerable. She eyes Brandon staring back at her. The two have chemistry. In silence they are mentally engaging each other. His stare never wavers, he just scans her up and down. Suddenly her face changes. She gets up, showing the audience her wedding band. We can feel her shame for flirting with Brandon. He gets up and stands behind her. He follows her out of the train only to lose her in the crowd. His disappointment isn't so much in relation to not getting to know her, but that he will have to continue his search for sex elsewhere.

Brandon is a tragic character. His only connection with people is linked with sex. How will this person help or interfere with me reaching my goal of orgasm? Brandon's limit's knows no bounds. Fassbender, who also appeared in McQueen's Hunger, gives a fascinating performance. It is fearless both in the sense that it is a physically challenging role and that he accomplishes the role with such honesty. He could have played it like some debonair businessman just looking to score. Fassbender knows that his character is truly disturbed. He knows that if people found out about his condition he would be ostracized. He also knows that he needs help and won't get it. All of these factors come into play and create an incredible performance. Much like Gosling pulled off in Drive, Fassbender uses his eyes and body language to express how he feels.

Pain is a word often associated with addiction. We see videos of addicts going through withdrawals in health class. They kick, scream, shake, vomit. Evidence of a sickness in the body. Fassbender's character also shows great pain and uneasiness. During times of sheer euphoria, at least for a normal person, Fassbender gives us pain and suffering. He can't help what he's doing but he needs it to stay normal.

Along with Fassbender is Mulligan, another one of today's rising stars. Her character is rebellious, dependent, and loving. She wants nothing more than to find someone to care for her and to spend time with her brother. Her brother is too involved with his addiction and her taste in men and willingness to fall in love with them brings her down even more. She plays a girl on the edge of a breakdown and really shines on screen. Like Fassbender, she gives her all for the role, exposing her true colors.

In just two films McQueen has established himself as a major player in the art house scene. Both films are festival favorites with critical praise, but the general public isn't ready for his heavy storytelling. With hope (and some financial backing) he will continue to make the films he wants to make and hopefully garner enough praise here in the states to win over more of the public. It's going to be hard if he keeps getting NC-17 ratings.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

Almodovar strikes again!

[10/10 · 15 January 2012]

The Skin I Live In (La piel que habito) is an emotionally draining yet highly enjoyable romp into a quasi new genre for Almodóvar. On the outside this has all the markings of a science fiction thriller, but the science involved really isn't the meat and potatoes of the film. It's a drama/romance steeped in mystery and intrigue, masquerading in sci/fi clothing. It stars Antonio Banderas, who reunites with Almodóvar after working with him over 20 years ago. Banderas plays a doctor whose controversial foray into developing new, stronger human skin forces him to test his new substance on a human patient in secret. Her name is Vera Cruz (Elena Anaya), and we are aware that Vera is, or at least was, being held captive inside Banderas' home.

There is also the housekeeper, played by one of Almodóvar stand by actresses, Marisa Paredes. She has known Banderas since he was a child. She is well aware of all his secrets, even ones that he isn't aware of. Her main goal is to protect him from the dangers of his work. Vera because of the reconstruction he has done to Vera's skin, he has made her similar to the wife that he lost, a concern for Paredes. Can he separate his feelings from his work, or will he succumb to desire and fall in far deeper than he could possibly imagine?

Almodóvar doesn't just give us generic characters in an average plot. No, no, no. He is not the person to put ordinary people in extraordinary situations. He takes extraordinary people and puts them in unimaginable circumstances. He has always done that and will continue to do that, and for that we thank him. Like M. Night Shyamalan, only less predictable, Almodóvar always keeps us on our toes. Just when we think we know where he's going, he jerks us in the other direction, and then jerks us back again. He does so cleanly and efficiently what others would make a mess of.

Banderas isn't just a talented doctor, he's a talented doctor bent on righting wrongs, revenging his family, and filling that empty void in his life. The same goes for Vera and Paredes. They both fit archetypical characters from the thriller genre, but there is so much more going on under the surface. Almodóvar's characters are like icebergs. What you see is only a tiny percent of what they are truly made up of.

Like so many of Almodóvar's previous films, especially those made in the last decade or so, this film has such a clean look to it. What I mean is the camera shots are well placed, level, and you can easily follow the action. We're not floating around the room or rumbling inside of a car. He and José Luis Alcaine (they've worked together several times before) utilize the beauty of their talent, the beauty of their setting, and juxtapose it with the ugliness of what is going on. There is kidnapping, murder, jealousy, lust, and science experiments, yet somehow they make it all look so chic. The use of color, a prominent feature in many of Almodóvar's films, is highlighted brilliantly here.

It's unlike any Almodóvar film I've ever seen, but at the same time it's like wearing your favorite shirt. It just feels so right, so comfortable. The material has changed but the elements are all there. He continues to shine with age and pushes the envelope further and further. He's a rebel, a genius, and a visionary, and one of the most talented artists working today.

Albert Nobbs (2011)

Tortured soul

[9/10 · 15 January 2012]

Albert Nobbs is a labor of love. Glenn Close, who stars in the titular role, has been connected with this material for nearly 20 years, playing the same role on stage in 1982. For years she tried to get the production to the big screen, and after a long wait her efforts have put forth a brilliant film. Directed by Rodrigo Garcia (In Treatment), this film tells the story of Albert, an Irish waiter at a hotel. The trouble is she has been portraying herself as a man for 30 years. She has become encased in her mindset of Albert Nobbs that she doesn't know her true self anymore. She must do whatever it takes to get by, even if it means keeping her secret to the grave.

She befriends a local painter, Hubert Page (Janet McTeer), only Hubert isn't all that he says he is either. With Hubert's friendship, Albert sees that what he needs is a wife. He attempts to court another maid at the hotel, Helen (by Mia Wasikowska), only she has taken a shine to Joe (Aaron Johnson), the new handyman. It's sometimes painful to see the lengths that Albert goes to for Helen, but Albert it so pure in his thinking and kind of heart that we want him to get the girl no matter what.

What makes Albert Nobbs so special is Close's performance. Close truly fits the part. There is something in her eyes that makes you really believe that the woman in Albert is only what he keeps hidden under his clothes. All the rest is a man. Close makes us believe that Albert sees himself as a man only just a little different. We see a fragile man who will stop at nothing to get what he wants, even if it means sucking up to the harsh and vulgar members of high society.

The supporting cast around Close is fantastic as well. McTeer really shines as Albert's only true friend. I would look for both Close and McTeer to be in contention come this Oscar night. Wasikowska and Johnson look great for their respective parts, playing them with honesty. Another accent to the cast is Brendan Gleeson as the local doctor. He adds a touch of sensibility to the entitled of the day. He likes a good, stiff drink (or three) and finds himself comfortable in the company of those considered lower than him.

Gleeson's character brings up a great quality to the film. I am astonished at how much of a commentary of 19th century life is put into the film. I would say most of the first act is setting up the world they live in and periodic references and characters enter the second and third acts to remind us of the time period this story is taking place. Albert Nobbs is in fact a reflection of what it was like to live back then. In order to make a decent living one had to be a man, otherwise find someone to live off of.

It's a heartbreaking story that will really hit home. Albert on the surface is a simple man, but underneath lies a wealth of feeling, confusion, and love. The film ends with the beautiful song "Lay Your Head Down" with lyrics by Close herself, music by Brian Byrne, and sung by Sinead O'Connor. It reminded me of "Into the West" by Annie Lennox, the Oscar winning song from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. This song from Albert is somber, sweet, and plays like a lullaby. I think it's safe to say that is exactly what it is; a lullaby for Albert, a character whose life has been so strenuous and tiresome.

The more I think about it the more I love this film. Great performances, great characters, and a perfect time period to be placed in. The song is the icing on the cake (and probably has the best shot at winning come Oscar night). It looks like Meryl Streep is all but a lock for Best Actress, but we shall see what happens. Who knows, maybe Albert will gain momentum coming down the homestretch. I hope it does.

The Descendants (2011)

Paradise Lost

[10/10 · 21 December 2011]

Alexander Payne bursts back onto the big screen in his book to film adaptation of The Descendants. It stars George Clooney as Matt King, a man whose family history is sort of the history of Hawaii. When a new law is passed that forces him and his remaining family to pass on their large chunk of shoreline real estate, King is faced with a major decision. To make things worse his wife is in a coma following a boating accident. The outlook isn't good, but things get even more complicated when the bombshell of an affair she had is revealed.

It's a family crisis. He and his two daughters, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), a teenager in reform school, and Scottie (Amara Miller), a young, rambunctious girl who is quickly making more enemies than friends, need to come together to help get through this ordeal. Matt needs to get in touch with family and friends to find some answers about what to do with his land, but also sneakily uncovering more about his wife's love affair. As he digs deeper, he uncovers more about himself than about anything else.

Alexander Payne is drawn to male characters struggling to find themselves. Broderick in Election, Nicholson in About Schmidt, Giamatti in Sideways, and now Clooney. They all have what appears to be a clear journey, only to find obstacle after obstacle in their way. Payne also finds himself at home in the world of adaptation. I have not read any of the books that his films are based on and I'm not so sure I would ever go after them, but Payne finds a way to present these stories about self discovery in such a unique, comic light, while keeping it grounded with a good heart.

This is by far his most touching and heartwarming film to date. It's not just the writing or the source material. It's the whole shebang. Acting, photography, the setting, and one kick-ass soundtrack.

Clooney leads with a strong performance, jilted betrayed husband with confused father. His face holding back the emotion as long as it can. This is by far one of Clooney's more personal performances (which is saying something. He tends to give his all in his work). He is backed up by arguably the best supporting actress of the year in Woodley. Not only does she look the part but she performs her character with a certain grace. She's a loud mouthed teenager (obvious influence on her younger sister) who isn't afraid to get involved even if it hurts. Beau Bridges and Robert Forster offer small but effective performances that add some back story to CLooney and other characters, as well as moving along the plot.

The music, a collaboration of island vibes from a wide assortment of artists, helps add to the illusion we mainland people have about Hawaii. We see palm trees, flowered leis, and white, sandy beaches, when the reality is it is just like any other state in the union. They have to work, raise families, and get stuck in traffic just like everyone else. Still, there is something extraordinary about the setting. I've seen plenty of films with bizarre and unorthodox locations, but there is a strange quality to Hawaii. Perhaps it was the melodious tones of the ukulele or the crashing of the waves along the shore, but there is a sense that this place is special, therein making the characters even more interesting. How can people live normal lives in this paradise? The interesting location mirrors the characters. There are as many layers to the beauty of Hawaii as there are to Matt King's inner-workings.

The Descendants is touching, sometimes dark, and one of the best films of the year. It's a culmination of perfect parts meeting fascinating characters and a beautiful state. Enjoy.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

Merry Cruise-mas!

[8/10 · 21 December 2011]

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a fun, exciting, and one of the coolest films of the year. It has guns, gadgets, explosions, sex appeal (for men and women), stunning locations, one of the best stunt performances by an actor of all time, and a finale that is so ludicrous it's hard to dislike.

Tom Cruise is back as Ethan Hunt, IMF's top agent. After breaking out of a Russian prison, he and his team (Paula Patton and Simon Pegg) are sent into the Moscow Kremlin to search for nuclear launch codes. When their plans are botched by another party (codename: Cobalt), an explosion in the building points all fingers at the US. Hunt and his team are deemed terrorists, though the Secretary of State gives them some "incentive" to continue their mission and find Cobalt before the launch codes are used.

Hunt, Jane (Patton), Benji (Pegg), and newly acquired Brandt (Jeremy Renner) search the globe for Cobalt, intercepting messages, causing chaos, etc. There's a lot of running around (this is a Tom Cruise movie, right?) and a lot of jaw dropping stunts (honestly jaw dropping) to help keep you engaged. The climax of the film is so intense you will really start to believe that this mission is without a doubt impossible. Just when you think things will work out, the stakes get higher.

I guess I forgot how impossible the missions really are. I was skeptical when they said "nuclear launch codes," at the beginning of the film. That might work for a cold war era James Bond movie, but this far off from that era makes it sound a little corny. After a while though I bought into it. The REAL winner of this film is the action.

Nothing goes to waste. There isn't a punch, kick, or jump that is thrown in just because it looks cool. Every fight, every sprint, and every explosion happens for a reason. To aid the action is a fantastic effort by stunt choreographers, performers, and yes, Tom Cruise himself. After watching some behind the scenes featurettes, I can assure you that what you see is pretty unbelievable. I thought Tom was sorta crazy for a number of reasons, but this film puts him over the edge (only this time in a "Oh my God did he just do that/that was totally awesome!" sort of crazy).

The locations are fantastic, the action intense, and the drama over the top. I thought I was going to have a hard time buying into the impossibility of the mission, but I totally bought it. There were a few moments when I honestly thought, "How are they going to get out of this?" You'll have to see it for yourself. It's outstanding. Quite possibly the most exciting film of the year other than Rango.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

I come from the land of the ice and snow!

[9/10 · 21 December 2011]

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is certainly one of the more depressing films of the year, but also one of the most enthralling, hard to turn away from films of the year. It follows Mikael Blomkvist (Craig), a journalist who has just lost everything, and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), a researcher/computer hacker whose life has been nothing but hardship and misunderstanding since her adolescent years. The two converge on a case surrounding one of the more prominent and dirty families in all of Sweden, the Vangers.

Henrik Vanger (Plummer) hires Mikael to investigate the disappearance of his niece. He encounters many problems, the biggest being the disappearance happened 40 years ago. When his research starts getting interesting and more dangerous, he calls upon Lisbeth, who did the background check on Mikael for the Vangers. Together the two try to solve the case, digging up hidden truths, dirty secrets, and encountering some detestable characters along the way. They don't know if they're getting close or farther from the truth, but as the heat turns up, it seems like the answer is rapidly approaching, or is it their impending demise?

What stands out most about this film from the original Swedish version of a few years ago is the mood. Yes, both films cover some disturbing material, but the original version looks like it was filmed in the real world. Fincher, however, creates an entirely different world. It looks, feels, and almost smells dirty. There is hardly a white light found in the film. Even the snow is turned grey by the overcast skies. You get the feeling that there is no hope for these characters.

There is really only one area where the film lacks. Pacing. There is so much information to translate to the audience. It's the job of the editor and the writer to make sure that the audience doesn't skip a beat. There is montage after montage, intercuts, and Swedish writing thrown about that it's hard to keep track of what exactly a character is doing. We get the gist of it all, but there were moments when I was lagging behind just enough to notice.

Other than that I thought the film was a fine adaptation for American audiences. I wasn't sure how the sexual violence would be handled, but Fincher doesn't hold back, much like the Swedish film. Is it important that we see this violence? I hate to say it but yes. We need to like Lisbeth so much that we completely disregard her outward appearance and see her as a survivor. She's extremely talented and fearless. Mara brings Lisbeth to life much like Noomi Rapace brought her to life, only Mara is a letter more brazen and less moody than Noomi, but both are effective with what they do. Craig too gives a solid performance. I was worried that they would try to toughen his character up (seeing as Craig is currently James Bond), but they didn't. They make him likable only because he seems normal and one who stands up for what he believes in.

It's a slimy, complex, fast-moving thriller that is sure to turn some heads at times but in the end you'll be holding your breath and hoping for the best. You might go into the movie clean, but you'll come out dirty.

Margin Call (2011)

Downfall

[9/10 · 21 December 2011]

Margin Call is one way of examining the economic collapse in 2008. It doesn't name names or implicate certain companies, but what it does do is utilize what we know and force us to complete the picture. We follow a trading company's 24 hour meltdown. The head of risk management (Tucci) is let go from the company just as he stumbles upon an alarming trend in the company's earnings. He gives the data to one of his workers (Quinto) who in turn discovers the horrifying truth about the companies dealings.

The matter goes through a series of bosses (Spacey, Baker, Irons), causing the company to come to an emergency meeting to try and figure out what to do next. Like many of us "normal" citizens, we woke up one morning and found that the stock market had taken a historic hit. And like "normal" citizens it took a while to figure out what happened and is still to an extent being explained to us (thank you Inside Job, Capitalism: A Love Story). Chandor realized this when writing and knew that a lot of the people implicated didn't quite understand what exactly they were doing. So we along with a lot of these "high-up" people find out from workers like Quinto that the work they have been doing was morally wrong and they are now facing one of the biggest and most dangerous decisions in US history.

Chandor does an excellent job in explaining what happened without really saying for sure what happened. He puts into layman's terms the basics of what happened, but we never know exactly how the company did what the did and what they did it with (that was a mouthful). It all sounds kind of boring on paper, but when people who care about what they are talking about discuss it with passion, it becomes very interesting.

Now, I am not one to get caught up with politics or news of this sort (I try to keep up on current events, emphasis on try) but I must say this was the most eye-opening explanation of the economic crisis I have seen yet. It was engrossing, enlightening, gripping, and hard to believe. Granted this is a work of fiction, I can imagine that Mr. Chandor did lots of homework in preparing to discuss this subject.

I wouldn't say that there is a standout performance here (other than Chandor). This was really an ensemble effort. Each performance had to be as convincing and as strong as every other. If one link in the chain breaks off, everybody falls. If I had to pick someone that really stood apart from the rest I would give it to Spacey. I really felt that he nailed the part. We really see him change over the course of the film, yet in a way we're not sure if he ever really will change.

These characters live in a culture like that of Oliver Stone's Wall Street. They waste money, try to accumulate as much money, and leave morality on the side. The work that they do involved not just numbers on a computer screen but the lives of millions of people. Their loss is a much greater loss for the general population. I found myself enraged at how some of these people think and act, but when I really thought about, they don't know any better. They've been spoiled their whole lives. It's pitiful. I honestly feel sorry that these people can't see past making a dollar than owning up to their mistake. The cast does a fantastic job in conveying this feeling. You can see the internal struggle start to manifest externally.

This is probably going to be as good as it gets for fictionalizing the economic disaster or 2008. I can't see how someone could improve upon it without naming names and villainizing people and corporations. It's a disturbing film in some regards (when you look at what is actually happening), but it's a breath of fresh air as far as filmmaking. Wonderful debut by Chandor. Very excited to see where he goes.

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Anger Management

[9/10 · 21 December 2011]

There is a moment in Paddy Constantine's Tyrannosaur where the two main characters confront each other about a major problem they are facing. For the first time the male protagonist sees what he was, what he has failed to do, and what he must do to make things right. It is such a cathartic moment of clarity for him and his female friend, both clarity and horror, and a complete shock for the audience.

Peter Mullan stars in one of the year's best films. He plays a man, Joseph, who suffers from alcohol, loneliness, and worst of all rage. His temper hurts those around him and gets him into more trouble than he can chew. His only friend is dying, the daughter of which hates both him and her dying father. He drinks all day, staggers home at night, and fights anyone who does him wrong, or at least what he calls wrong.

One day he winds up hiding inside a woman's garment shop. She finds him irritable, vulnerable, and extremely volatile. The woman, Hannah (Olivia Colman), does what most of us wouldn't do. She let's him be, offers tea, and prays for him. This confuses Joseph. It's quite evident, but underneath all the testosterone and aggression you can almost see him trying to figure out why she helps.

We soon find out that she is the victim of someone similar to Joseph, only more cruel and abusive than just angry. Her husband James (Eddie Marsan) drinks as well but his temper and need for sex and authority drive him to do awful things to Hannah. Joseph and Hannah strike an unlikely friendship, attempting to find solace in the utter chaos that is life.

Mullan and Colman play off of each other so well. They both need help and want help but don't know how to ask others let alone help themselves. Mullan's character lost his wife to diabetes, though his aggression doesn't stem from that single incident. We don't know everything about him or Hannah but we know their characters have seen a lot and have had to deal with more than your average Joe. Their faces and their voices speak volumes of their back story.

Director Constantine makes his feature debut (he also wrote the script). He shows a gritty and morbid, Irish Landscape, where the beer flows, the skies are rarely bright and sunny, and the nights are filled with barking dogs, violent husbands, and tortured souls crying out. He has developed some really deep, disturbed characters that have significant baggage. The writing is authentic (I'd be curious to find out how much was improvised by Mullan and others, especially during tirades). There is a great deal of heart poured into this film.

There is a good amount of disturbing material here that some people might find offensive. As tough as these scenes and images are to take in I find that they are necessary to tell this type of story. Violence is not pretty, but when done with a certain grace and dedication it can really turn into something special, such is the case with Tyrannosaur.

The Ides of March (2011)

Watch your back!

[9/10 · 21 December 2011]

The Ides of March is a "grab you by the throat kind" of political drama. I don't want to call it a political thriller like The Manchurian Candidate, but it has certain elements that make you stand on edge (confrontations, secrets revealed, intense dialogue). It stars Ryan Gosling as Stephen Meyers, a young and talented man who is second in command on presidential hopeful Mike Morris' (George Clooney) campaign staff. When he has an unauthorized meeting with the opposing candidates campaign manager, all hell breaks loose as friendships are tested, news stories are released, and the worst thing a campaign can buy pokes its ugly head out; a scandal.

Along with Gosling and Clooney is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Clooney's head campaign manager, Paul Giamatti as the opposing manager, Marissa Tomei as the news reporter for the Times, and Evan Rachel Wood as the young intern who catches the eye of Gosling in more ways than one. A terrific ensemble cast that pulls off a terrific political drama in a political climate that is volatile and overflowing with unethical behavior.

Gosling continues his dominance on screen. Not just as a heartthrob but as a dramatic force. Not since Paul Newman flashed those baby blue eyes has there been an actor with such intensity without saying a word. There is an intense scene between Wood and Gosling where with just ONE look Gosling lets the audience know what he is thinking, what he wants to do, and what he has to do. This performance along with Drive make 2011 a really special year for the young actor.

Clooney pulls off the rare quadruple crown by acting, directing, writing, and producing. Though not as prominent on screen as Gosling, Clooney's presence is vital to the film, especially towards the end. In just his fourth film behind the camera, Clooney is building up a pretty decent resumé (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Good Night and Good Luck, Leatherheads). He calls on the help of Phedon Papamichael to photograph (he also photographs Clooney in Alexander Payne's Oscar hopeful The Descendants), who cleverly shows us what the people see and what is going on behind the scenes of politics (flipping back and forth nicely between the two). There is a scene where Clooney is giving a very enthusiastic speech in front of a large American flag, meanwhile Gosling and Hoffman are having an intense discussion on the reverse side. I saw Clooney on one side speaking of the light side of politics while on the other side, in front of an illuminated AND reversed American flag (used on soldiers uniforms in times of war), two men delving into the darkness of politics. They are the soldiers of war. Clooney is the poster child (literally).

There are so many reference to the Obama campaign that are hard to ignore like the advertisements, the political messages, the overall feeling of goodness. I don't think this is in any way shape or form a slant at Obama. No, no, no. I think they are trying to mimic the political climate and using images and ideas we have recently seen. I DO believe this is a huge slap in the face of politics and even a little jab at the current administration, saying that no matter how hard you try to do good if you want to succeed in Washington, you need to get dirty.

There are so many levels to dissect here. It's a story about survival, idealism, morality, politics, and a big reflection on the political machines that are in play in our nation's capital. What we see on TV is Clooney's character, Mike Morris. A clean-cut, righteous politician who wants nothing more than to change the ways of government. What we don't see are the nasty, backstabbing ways of politics, where one candidate's agenda doesn't mean squat when it comes to getting elected. There are others waiting to bring you down or raise you up.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and much like Roman politics there are friends waiting with open arms and knives at the ready.

The Muppets (2011)

Food for the soul

[7/10 · 27 November 2011]

In Disney's major release for the holiday season, they went with an old stand by, the Muppets, in a film simply called The Muppets. It's a strange blend of humor, nostalgia, and satire. Here we meet Walter, who we know just by looking at him is a little bit different. He is, well, for lack of a better word, a Muppet. The only thing is he is a Muppet living in the real world, and not, I stress not, a member of the Muppet gang. At a very young age he fell under their spell, through television and video rentals. Walter's dream was to walk through the studio that his beloved Muppet's walked through. He gets his chance to meet them when his brother Gary (Jason Segel, who also co-wrote the script) takes his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) to Los Angeles.

Walter finds out that the Muppets aren't as popular as they used to be. He finds only remnants of the glory days in a dusty studio, but winds up uncovering a sinister plot intending to bury the Muppet franchise for good. With so much at stake, Walter goes to great lengths to find his idols and bring them back together. With the help of Gary, Amy, Kermit, Fozzie, and the rest of the gang, Walter sets in motion a reunion scenario where if the Muppets put on one last show they can raise enough money to stop the maniacal Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) from ending the Muppet's hopes of survival.

It's almost like The Blues Brothers, where if "the band" gets back together all will be saved. The only difference is that for the audience it's like a reunion, too. We haven't seen the Muppets together save for a few commercials and music videos here and there. I would be lying if I said I didn't get goosebumps seeing Gonzo with his chickens, or the Swedish Chef and his man-hands. Without even trying this film grabs you right in the heart, squeezing every ounce of childhood you have left in there.

It is really evident that Segel took the task of acting and, more importantly, writing, very seriously. His heart really comes through. He didn't want to do an injustice to the franchise that gave him so much pleasure as a youngster. It's as if he wrote Walter as a Muppetization of himself (which really comes through during one particular musical number). He follows the Muppet formula of combining cultural references with the power of celebrity and the importance of silliness and childlike inhibition.

Has any of the magic left the Muppets? I don't think so. I must admit that some of the story points were a bit ridiculous, and sometimes a little too on the nose (yes, I am aware that it was trying to be, but doing it too much becomes tedious). I wasn't entering the film expecting completely revamped Muppet style. It was by the book, aimed appropriately at both children and adults, without ever stepping too far in either direction.

The BIG question remains...now what? The whole point of the movie is to show that the Muppet's have basically become an afterthought. A fond memory that quickly fades. Will this film attract a slew of Muppet followers? Will there be another film? Television show? Who knows. The movie ends optimistically, but how could it not? The thought of a world without the Muppets is scary. It's nice knowing that somewhere Kermit and the gang are waiting for their next queue. To light the lights, put on make up, and all that jazz.

So go treat yourself to a little taste of your childhood. It will do the soul good.

J. Edgar (2011)

Image control

[6/10 · 15 November 2011]

In Clint Eastwood's latest biopic J. Edgar, we delve into the personal life of one of the most powerful and enigmatic figures of the 20th century. We are shown pieces of a man who was scared, confused, and extremely intelligent. He knew how to cater to the media, but his personal life was shrouded in secrecy. It could be argued that J. Edgar himself wasn't quite sure of who he was.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Hoover. We see him evolve from a young upstart in the US Justice Department to the head of the FBI. DiCaprio portrays a man of man faults, though not entirely through his own doing. He overcame a speech impediment, grew up virtually without a father, and had difficulty expressing himself socially and sexually. Through DiCaprio's performance, we see just that, a man with a head on his shoulders, only confiding in those few people he trusted.

In his inner circle was Helen Gandy (Naoimi Watts), his personal secretary and keeper of Hoover's private files. Her commitment to Hoover knew no bounds. His right hand man, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), was, on paper, not the right person to become Hoover's 2nd in command, but Hoover saw something in Tolson that made him feel comfortable. From what we see on film, Tolson was more than a friend, more than a partner. He had no title for Hoover. He was invaluable.

The center of Hoover's world, however, was his mother Annie (Judi Dench). A stern yet loving woman, she knew what Hoover needed to be successful. Her approval meant so much to him, and the thought of letting her down was unfathomable. That would wreak havoc on his private life throughout his life.

Hoover's appointment as head of the FBI would last for nearly half a decade. In that time he saw our country through several wars, the "red scare," gangsters, and a presidential assassination. To compile his ever major decision would make for a great documentary series, but to compress it all into a movie under 2 1/2 hours, Eastwood utilizes recent Oscar winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk) to pen the script. What Black does is paint a picture of Hoover not as the head of the FBI, but as a man whose image was so out of whack that he himself had trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

The film constructed in a way that we are told the story of Hoover's life through Hoover's own words, not from a general point of view. What makes this so effective is that we aren't sure of how certain events actually transpired, making the story, and in effect history, somewhat clouded, much like the image of Hoover himself.

This image of Hoover has been dissected and speculated for years. Was he a homosexual? What secrets did he take to the grave? Was he involved in any conspiracies? These questions are touched upon, but never fully answered. What we are left with is a portrait of a man left unfinished, much like the painting of Washington we see several times throughout the film. Like the painting, Hoover is a man incomplete. That painting is a reminder to him that even though he is incomplete he can still make a difference.

Some of the strengths of the film are also its weaknesses. The story itself if fascinating, but it tends to drag on. It reminded me of The Good Shepherd. A really good story with great characters based on true events, just nothing extraordinary. The acting too is well done but, for me at least, I had a hard time not seeing Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover, especially with the makeup. Part of it, especially with DiCaprio, is his voice. He has such a unique way of speaking and he has trouble disguising it. His character also reminded me of his performance in The Aviator.

The acting on the whole, especially Hammer and Dench (I expect nods for both and DiCaprio as well), is well above average. Eastwood always manages to extract prime performances from his actors, including when he is acting. Eastwood also continues his work behind the scenes by composing the score, his seventh feature length scoring composition. Like his other composition, there's a heavy, moody, jazzy undertone. He doesn't overpower us with large orchestral compositions. Instead he utilizes strings, piano, and a few horns to accent the images.

Moneyball (2011)

Baseball by the numbers

[9/10 · 24 September 2011]

Moneyball tells the story of the 2002 season of the Oakland Athletics, a team that rose to notoriety because of its low payroll and unorthodox player selection. Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), a former player turned general manage, grows tired with the ancient, inefficient ways of the game he has committed his entire life to. When a transaction goes awry he stumbles across Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale, economics graduate who believes he has a system to rating players based on numbers.

Billy and Peter begin trading, signing, and grooming the team based on data, not scouting, something that other members of the team are not fond of, including Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the team's manager. Billy and Peter's system defies current baseball logic, but when the club starts to win games with players like Scott Hatteberg (Chris Pratt), David Justice (Stephen Bishop), and Chad Bradford (Casey Bond), the eyes of the country turn to Oakland, where only seeing is believing.

What happened in Oakland back in '02 was incredible. It shouldn't have happened if you ask the right people, and other people will tell you it means nothing. Well, it did mean something it has changed the way people think about the game for good. You couldn't just go out and look at a kid to see if he would be a star or not. There were more stats to consider than home runs, strikeouts, and batting average. The game was expanding and becoming more and more a battle of logic.

The film's structure is centered mostly on Billy Beane, but the most exciting parts for me were about the system. Writer Aaron Sorkin, who a few months back accepted a slew of awards for his screenplay The Social Network, tosses out jargon that baseball fanatics go crazy for. For the general audience, that's where Billy helps out. Peter explains the system and has to break it down more for Beane (i.e. the audience) so everybody on screen and in the seats is on the same page.

Pitt's portrayal of Beane won me over. He completely caught me off guard. I know Pitt can act but I remember him for performances that were very complex on the outside. Aldo Raine (Inglourious Basterds) with his pronounces chin, squinty eyes, and thick accent. Benjamin Button (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) who grew younger as he got older. Jeffrey Goines (12 Monkeys) who couldn't sit still let alone focus on one subject in a conversation. Yes, he was nominated for all these performances, but in a performance like this there is something bubbling under the surface. All of his characters to an extent have something going on underneath, only this character, Billy Beane, is so normal and calm on the outside, yet when he is alone we can see pain and frustration.

His supporting cast of Hill, Hoffman, and the slew of ball players and colleagues, help turn this baseball team into the world of Oakland Athletics. Hill and Hoffman especially play perfect compliments to Pitt's sunny exterior. Hill is quiet, timid, and very smart. Hoffman is cold, weathered, and stubborn. Pitt is able to play off of both temperaments and make their scenes together pop off the screen.

The one thing that this movie has going for it is the lack of actual action on the diamond. There are some great scenes of actual baseball, one at bat by Hatteberg in particular struck a chord with me, but for the most part the action is behind the scenes. There is enough for a sports junkie to get their fix and enough drama and with Beane and his family to entice any average viewer into the theater. I can't think of many target groups that wouldn't find it interesting, except for children, due to language and complexity of some of the dialogue. All in all this is one movie that will please a lot of people, and more importantly a lot of different people, sort of like The Blind Side, only the movie is actually really good.

Drive (I) (2011)

Just drive.

[10/10 · 17 September 2011]

Calm, cool, collected. There are a ton of characters who fall under this description, but there are only a handful that stand out above the rest. Rick Blaine in Casablanca. Jef Costello in Le Samourai. Jack from The American. These characters are methodical. They don't lose control easily, but if they do you would never know.

It's safe to say that the Driver from Drive can be added to that prestigious list.

Drive is the cool, smart, festival favorite of the year helmed by Nicolas Winding Refn (Bronson, Valhalla Rising, Pusher). Based on the book by the same name, Drive follows the Driver, played by Ryan Gosling in a tour de force. He's a nameless, mechanic who does a few jobs on the side. Sometimes he's a stunt driver for Hollywood movies. Other times he's a getaway driver. Regardless the setting he works with efficiency and composure.

His handler Shannon, played by a fantastic Bryan Cranston, extorts his talents at the shop and with other jobs, but the driver doesn't mind. Shannon is a guy with the best of intentions just trying to get luck back on his side. His problem is associating with gangsters, played by Albert Brooks in a surprisingly nasty performance and Ron Perlman, his nasty partner in crime.

The driver, with his tough exterior and cold stare, has one soft spot; his neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio. Her husband is currently doing a stretch in prison and the driver takes it upon himself to keep her safe, even when things start to get really ugly.

Drive is a samurai type story set in Los Angeles. The driver has morals that he stands by. He doesn't take advantage of people, he isn't concerned with material things, and if you wrong him you better run. Gosling plays the role with a certain grace rarely seen on the big screen. He speaks with his facial expressions. A glance, a twitch resembling a smile. When he does speak you listen. His words are selected carefully. No small talk, just enough to get his point across. He does the rest of the talking with his hands.

The rest of the cast does an excellent job. Mulligan continues to shine as well as Breaking Bad's Cranston. Cranston especially had a certain quality about him. The way he carried himself made me feel like he knew exactly who he was playing and what he had been through. It was interesting seeing Brooks in a tough guy role, seeing as he seems to nab the slightly neurotic and always comical characters (Finding Nemo, The In-Laws, Defending Your Life), and Perlman continues his string of rugged performances.

Refn's style carries over from his previous films, an impressive feat considering he's used three different cinematographers on his four major films. There's violence when there needs to be, there's an excellent musical selection, and there's fantastic camera work. The angles, the cutaways, all perfect. He manages his action scenes with extreme care. We get an excellent dose of action with character decision and reaction. He doesn't bog us down with a heavy musical score or a plethora of shaky cam cuts. We get nice, smooth shots, showing us the craft of the chase.

This film is going to be a slow mover for some viewers. If you're looking for a high octane thrill ride, I would either prepare for a bit of a wait, or go see something else. There's a lot of waiting, but if you can handle the wait it is well worth it. It's more violent and more intense than The American, which might have been the most underrated movie last year, but it shares in that less is more quality.

A big win for both Gosling's career and Refn. With his last string of movies Gosling has really stepped up his game. He's more than just a face. This role allowed him to look good and kick some ass, all without taking his shirt off, something a standard Hollywood action flick would require. Expect this film to maintain it's headway heading into award season. I'm basically guaranteeing at least Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor nods, with the possibility of supporting actor nods for Cranston and Brooks. Who knows, it could be a double nod year for Gosling who's co-starring with Clooney in Clooney's The Ides of March.

Winnie the Pooh (2011)

Too much fluff, no stuff

[6/10 · 30 July 2011]

Disney Animation Studio's (DAS) 51st animated feature Winnie the Pooh takes us back into the stories of A.A. Milne. There a donkey named Eeyore, Kanga, and Little Roo. There's Rabbit, and Piglet, and there's Owl, but most of all Winnie the Pooh (there is also Tigger, but he is not apart of the song). In this installment, Eeyore has lost his tail and it's up to the gang to either find his old tail or fashion a replacement one.

Like the previous installment by DAS back in 1977, the stories are simple, much like the minds of their characters. The one genius thing about the Winnie the Pooh stories are how the minds of the characters imitate the minds of the child, Christopher Robin. After all, the characters are all imagined in the mind of Christopher, so it makes sense that they have the same thought process. Even the wisest of characters, Owl, who uses big words and impresses the others, is as outlandish and nonsensical as Tigger. It's not to say that these characters are unintelligent. Like a child they are still learning. They are gullible, easily excited, fearless in the face of real danger and scared in the face of imagined danger.

1977's The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh was a breakthrough not just in animation but in style. The physics of the film are still untouchable today. The way the characters act out certain scenes inside the book, walking across sentences, leaping from page to page, etc. It's still a joy to watch today. This new version uses a very similar format both in the physical storytelling and in the story arc. There is nothing incredibly different in this film compared to its predecessor, only the voices have changed and the animation is glossier.

For children who have not been exposed to the original film, I suppose this would be a nice film to grow up with. It's cute, innocent, and has a good moral backbone. The animation is up to snuff with Disney standards. It has a beautiful palette and a really nice finish. The characters haven't changed, only the quality of the animation, and for that I thank Disney.

For those who grew up with the 1977 original, this might be a sour grape in the bunch of DAS features. There is too much music, not enough action, and almost follows the old format to a "T." One aspect that Disney is not at fault at is the voice acting. Having grown up listening to Sterling Holloway as the voice of Pooh Bear, I knew going in that this wouldn't be the same. The same goes for the rest of the characters, and I applaud Jim Cummings filling in as both Pooh and Tigger. An arduous task to say the least and he does so with style. Still, I miss the old voices and will always associate those stories to the voices. New audiences will have no problem whatsoever.

The music. The original film had one big number (Heffalumps and Woozles) with a few minor songs thrown about ("Little Black Raincloud," "The rain, rain, rain came down" to name a few). This film seemed weighted down by some of the musical numbers. There are two larger numbers and what seemed like a lot of little ones thrown about. Part of the problem is that the film has such a short run time (barely over an hour) so the numbers are close together, taking away from the action of the story. Some are forced in there when a few lines of dialogue could have helped. It shows that there really wasn't that much of a story to begin with. Not to bash on the music too much, but I am not a huge Zooey Deschannel fan to begin with (at least on the mic) so that didn't help. Sorry Zooey.

Other than these problems the main thing I had wrong with the film was how eerily similar the format was to the original. From the songs to the jokes I was disappointed with the unoriginality of it all. That's not to say the entire film is a rip off, but I wanted to see something new, rather than the same format.

Regardless, it's a decent effort and another sign that Disney hasn't completely given up on making animated features the old fashioned way, though I was surprised by how little advertisement was put into the film's release. Did they forget or just run out of money after all of the Cars 2 ads? Children will enjoy, especially the young ones. This will be a nice DVD to pull out for a car ride or a rainy day. It's hard for a film like this to compete with the 3-D juggernauts of Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2, but I commend DAS in their effort and pray that their next releases is something to write home about. It looks like the next few releases might be computer animated like Tangled and Bolt, so who knows what could happen. Disney's roots are embedded in ink and paint, but how much longer will the magic last? It will be a sad day when the ink wells dry up at Disney.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

The wild west with a twist

[7/10 · 30 July 2011]

Based on the graphic novel of the same name, Cowboys & Aliens takes us back to a post-Civil War west, similar to the west evoked in the glory days of westerns, or for you readers out there who didn't receive a healthy dose of John Wayne and John Ford, think Unforgiven. We meet a man with no memory (Daniel Craig), who we later find out is Jake Lonergan, wanted for armed robbery and murder. He doesn't know his name, where he came from, our how he ended up in the middle of the desert with a large metal cuff on his wrist. He wanders into a nearby town where he winds up getting into more trouble. He gets the attention of the sheriff and the wealthiest man in town, Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Ford knows Jake as the man who robbed his train. He wants to hang him up, but he won't get his wish.

The town is bombarded by a wave of alien spacecraft, the kind the throw bombs and suck up victims with lights and ropes. Six-shooters and Winchester rifles do nothing but make noise. It is here that we find out the purpose of the metal cuff on Jake's arm.

If you've seen the trailer you can pretty much guess what the film is about. One man, wanted for murder, is the key to the town's survival against the alien invaders, as well as the key to getting back the abducted townsfolk. Simple enough. That's what I expected and that is what I received. The only part I didn't account for was how entertained I was.

I have a tendency to look past the surface of the screen, at the dialogue, camera shot selection, lighting effects, etc. Here I was more concerned about whether or not a Cowboys & Aliens toy gun like the one Craig uses would be available in time for Christmas. The movie is fairly simple but the concept is, to put it bluntly, really cool!

Think about it for a second. Put yourself in the wild west of the 1870s. You're exiting a saloon and are about to mount your trusty steed. Then on the horizon a line of lights appear. Unlike anything you've seen before. Suddenly you are surrounded by lights, sounds, and explosions the likes of which you never dreamed of. The weapon you carry in your holster has been made useless. All you can do is try to survive. It's kind of frightening. These characters didn't even think about creatures from another world. They have enough issues with the Natives of the country.

Favreau does a fantastic job in recreating the old west and throwing it into the middle of this utterly preposterous situation. The clothing, sets, and weapons hearken back to the days of Wyatt Earp and the O.K. Corral. Taking a genre as familiar as the west and placing it in the context of a science fiction story makes too much sense. Most science fiction stories have roots in the west. A hero versus a villain. The threat of outsiders. Foreign landscapes. Big shoot outs. The story lines cross over so much that they were bound to collide some day.

The two leads of the film, Craig and Ford, or James Bond and Indiana Jones, work hand in hand, feeding off each other's sharpness. Craig has a cold, icy stare, like you don't know what he is going to do next, but he knows exactly (perfectly describes his character). Ford plays angry better than most. His scowl is legendary, and puts it to plenty of good use here. The supporting cast of Sam Rockwell, Keith Carradine, Olivia Wilde, and Adam Beach do a fine job. Nothing outstanding (except for maybe Rockwell), but still a decent job.

It's not a perfect film even if it is a summer blockbuster. There were a few moments where I shook my head and asked why, but for the majority I was entertained. Action junkies will certainly get their money's worth, and best of all it comes at a 2-D price. No glasses required and no extra fee (though the price still stings a bit). It's War of the Worlds meets The Searchers. Not the best match, but one that you can handle. Enjoy.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Seriously, enough is enough.

[3/10 · 31 May 2011]

The one word I kept repeating as I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was, "Why?" Why haven't they explained the disappearance of the characters from the previous films? Why are mermaids a complete ripoff of sirens? Why was this movie made???

All questions aside, let's go through the brief synopsis. The film opens with the Spanish discovering a book that leads to the fountain of youth. Jump to London, we find Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) and his first mate Gibbs (Kevin McNally) in a tight bind (per usual). In an attempt to acquire a new ship, he runs into an old flame, Angelica (Penélope Cruz). Without giving away too much, Sparrow and Angelica wind up on Captain Blackbeard's boat (Ian McShane), who is also in search of the fountain.

Meanwhile, Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush), under orders of the King of England, is on a mission to beat the Spanish to the fountain. Though his pirate roots run deep, he uses the English for his own personal gain, the reason for which is revealed later.

To be honest, there isn't much to the story without revealing some marginally important plot points like relationships being revealed and character histories. Here's what you need to know, there are three main parties rushing towards the fountain of youth. They all cross each other's paths from time to time, and they each have their own motives for reaching the fountain. To use the fountain's powers they must perform a ritual that requires two silver cups from Ponce de Leon, a tear from a mermaid, and a human sacrifice.

Let's start with what works, as that list is the shortest. The special effects are decent. Nothing new from the previous films, just decent. Depp hasn't lost a step with Captain Jack, though he hasn't learned any new tricks. Not a good thing, not a bad thing. The same goes for Rush. To be honest, that's all I have to say as far as compliments go, and those weren't really compliments. More like aspects of the film that I didn't strongly dislike.

I'll begin with the action. Over the top is one way to describe it. Boring is another. I think it's best to call it pointless. There are chases and sword fights that seem to go on and on when there was really no need for it. There is a part where two opposing characters are about to face off, swords in hand, fire in their eyes. Just before they face off with their bands of troops behind them, Jack Sparrow steps in, noting that it is only the two men who have the conflict. A valid argument, but the men fight anyways. The fight is eerily similar to the one that took place at the end of the first Pirates movie. How interesting.

The story? Flawed. It comes off as if it were written to be made into a video game. There are small quests, puzzles, and sword fights galore. Every bit of which is predictable as the one before it. Accompanying this story is a cast of new characters, also predictable and uninteresting. For the fourth straight movie we meet a new pirate captain, one that is supposedly unbeatable, infamous for past battles. The writers are running out of pirate lore to exploit. Who is next? Captain Hook? Sandwich? Morgan?

This is by far the most violent Disney film ever. I'm not just talking about a few bad guys meeting their untimely end via a distant explosion. For those interested in preserving the shock, skip this paragraph. A MAN IS STRIPPED OF HIS FLESH! Yeah. Don't be fooled by the Disney logo at the beginning. There is some pretty wild stuff here. It's one thing to show living (sort of dead) pirates. It's a horse of a different color when a live pirate gets the arch of the covenant treatment. There are several others attacked by sea creatures while others just get capped. On the whole a lot of death.

So who is behind this? The blame could lie on Rob Marshall, whose previous work is primarily show-stopping musical pieces like Chicago and Nine. As easy as it is to blame him I don't think he has much to do with it. It has an almost identical look to the other films, which begs the question who has the bigger influence, Rob Marshall (Gore Verbinski for the previous three films) or producer Jerry Bruckheimer? I'm better on Bruck. This is his baby and I'm sure he has the final say.

Back to my original question of "why?" In short, the answer is money. The previous two sequels made a large, and I mean large, sum of cash. Although I highly doubt this one will be as successful, I'm sure they will get their money's worth and then some. Money aside I honestly can't see why this film was made. It completely abandons several key characters from the previous films and in the end, I'm sorry to say, takes us nowhere. It is a zero gain. At least in the other films there was some sort of terror or element that could potentially lead to the end of the world. Not here. Sorry. Nada.

Save you money for something worth while. And do not, DO NOT, see this in 3D. I saw this in standard definition and it was fine. With the money you spend on 3D you can have a couple of months worth of Netflix movies. That is a much better deal.

Spaceship Earth (1982)

An unforgettable journey

[10/10 · 17 May 2011]

This unconventional Walt Disney World attraction fuses history and entertainment in a fun and informative, slow-moving ride. Speaking as someone who has been on the ride countless times, as well as someone who has experienced the changes in the ride over the decades, I encourage all of those who visit Walt Disney World and the EPCOT theme park in particular to take the time to enjoy this attraction.

The ride features various scenes from important points in human history, creating a stunning visual account of the history of communication. Important events like the invention of papyrus scrolls, theatre, Guttenberg's printing press, and radio are just some of the events depicted. Each scene is filled with detail from the animatronics acting out the event down to the set dressings and backdrops.

The ride is located in the iconic "golf ball" at the entrance of the park. There usually isn't a long line for the ride, but regardless if there is it usually moves pretty quickly as it is a continuously moving ride.

Again, if you are visiting WDW, be sure to make a stop at this ride. It's not a thrill ride, but I can almost guarantee you won't be disappointed.

Rango (2011)

The Ballad of Rango

[10/10 · 13 March 2011]

Rango, director Gore Verbinski's (Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, The Weather Man) first foray into animation, is a mesmerizing display of both animation and storytelling. We follow a chameleon, voiced wonderfully by the talented Johnny Depp, whose life is turned upside down when he finds himself stranded in the desert. After an encounter with a hawk, our chameleon friend runs into another critter of the desert, a lizard named named Beans (Isla Fisher), who brings the chameleon into town.

In the town of Dirt we meet an array of strange looking characters, all of which seem to be confused and curious about this newcomer the chameleon. Now, our friend who remains nameless up until this point, is an actor by trade, though I guess you could call it desire, who is in search of finding his own identity. When approached with the question of who he really is, he quickly comes up with the back story for...Rango.

Rango quickly becomes the town's new hero/sheriff. His first task is to settle the unpleasantness surrounding the towns water supply, which dwindles day by day. With the help of Beans and some of the other locals, Rango gets a posse together to find the missing water. Should he fail, the future of Dirt looks mighty grim.

This movie had the potential to be a cheesy, kid-joke infused, chaotic romp and a poor excuse of a western. Yet just the opposite happened. The jokes are witty, it is very controlled, and it is an excellent western, certainly one of the best since the millennium. The very opening scene with the soon to be named Rango is so clever and unexpected that I thought Nickelodeon had never even screened the movie before being released. There are so many one liners and visuals that go completely, and I mean completely over the younger audience's still developing head. There are some laugh out loud moments for them, but I don't think they will really understand what is going on for most of the movie.

There are guns, explosions, and chases to keep them busy, not to mention a fair dose of falls, whacks, and kerplunks. The kids will be fine. It's the adults that really get to enjoy this movie. I would go so far as to say that adults should call a babysitter to forgo any questions their children might have like, "Why are you laughing?"

Depp's performance, and I do mean performance, is remarkable. My brother said that he didn't even think it was Johnny Depp. Depp, whose face and on screen persona is so hard to dismiss, is hidden well behind the uneven eyes of his reptilian persona. His talents along with the entire cast, whose voice acting turned into real acting behind the scenes (I strongly encourage you all to watch the featurettes online) turned out stellar performances similar to those from Wes Anderson's 2009 masterpiece Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Verbinski's animation team deserves a great deal of praise as well. The textures and attention to detail rivals that of Pixar, who invented the process of CG feature films. The landscapes, dreamscapes, and everything in between is second to none. The most important part of the animation and perhaps the whole movie is the work done on each individual face. Each character pops off the screen. Usually such craftsmanship is reserved for the main character, the villain, and a few secondary characters (i.e. Carl Frederickson, Russell, Dug, and Charles F. Muntz from Pixar's Up), but here each character, regardless how much screen time they are allowed, is given their own unique features. It's some of the best animation I have ever seen, and that is not an exaggeration.

This tightly woven animated movie is a sight to be seen. Need I forget to mention, you don't have to break the bank to see it in 3D. Would it have looked nice, maybe, but this is sure proof that 2D is alive and well in the land of animated films. Will it fluff up those box office numbers, no, but will it win over the hearts of millions like me, starving for some real good animation outside of Disney and Pixar, you betcha.