A CHRISTMAS CAROL

Robert Zemeckis has been revered for directing films like "Cast Away", the "Back to the Future" series, and "Forrest Gump". But in the last few years he has developed a curious habit in the field of animation. His last two outings in this category were "The Polar Express" (another classic Christmas tale) and the action-epic "Beowulf". These films are both very well done and the computer animation is spectacular. They pale in comparison though to Zemeckis' third animated epic, "A Christmas Carol".


This classic tale needs no summary, but the way Scrooge and his three ghosts are presented are absolutely stunning. Scrooge himself, voiced by the way-too-talented Jim Carrey, is just a marvel to look at. His hooked nose and jutting chin are done in a way that makes him ugly, but still relatable as a human being. He also looks incredibly real, every pore on his face is able to be seen, and his clothes look just as real and tattered as if they were in a live-action period film. Jim Carrey's voice also shines through, his British, mean-spirited growl is so well done that it is hard to believe that Ace Ventura is voicing him.


The ghost of Christmas Past (voiced by Carrey) is the funniest and most exciting of the three ghosts. His head is a ball of fire and he is about three feet tall. Carrey's whisper of a voice makes everything the ghost says funny and his head-bobbing can be stared at the entire film. Christmas Past also provides the best visuals as he flies Scrooge through cities and forests to visit Scrooge's school, where he first worked, and the place where his wife left him. These scenes provide depth and sympathy for Scrooge, and require a reevaluation of his character.


The Ghost of Christmas Present is by far the most well done of the three ghosts. Voiced again by Carrey, he provides a boisterous laugh to this jolly giant of a spirit and makes Scrooge see how his bad treatment of his co-workers and peers have negatively affected them on Christmas day. These surprisingly tender scenes effect Scrooge deeply. So much so in fact, that he cries after the jolly ghost disappears (which happens right after a surprisingly scary scene involving rabid children or "temptations").


"A Christmas Carol" gets down right creepy when the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come enters. Looking exactly like the grim reaper and taking the form of Scrooge's shadow, he provides Scrooge a look into the future right after Scrooge has died. This finally sends Scrooge over the edge, and leaves Scrooge to question how he treats Christmas and everyone around him.


The visuals are absolutely stunning. All of the "sets" look 100% real, and everything in the background and foreground are animated meticulously. "A Christmas Carol" is also very well adapted from Dickens' story. Zemeckis' screenplay is written in the exact same type of dialect as in the book, so it will be hard for little kids to understand. It is also the most faithful adaptation of the book I have ever seen. This is a version of Dickens' classic for people older then 10 years of age. Finally! This is no Muppet are Mickey Mouse version, this is the Dickens version, and for that I thank Zemeckis. It is quite scary for younger kids as well, so there will not be a lot of crying babies in the theater either. The movie is very long though, and some of the sequences just make stomachs do somersaults. These two things, while seeming rather small, really detract from the film. But if Zemeckis can keep improving this much with each of his animated films, the public will be in for a real treat. More please, Mr. Zemeckis!


Verdict: GO SEE IT!


****/***** (4/5 stars)

OLD DOGS

In director Walt Becker's new film, "Old Dogs", Robin Williams has a tattoo on his chest that says "Freemont" instead of "Free Man". He got this tattoo when his character (Dan) was fresh off a divorce and went to party in Miami. The reason his tattoo says this is because the tattoo artist could not speak a word of English. This story has absolutely nothing to do with the actual plot of the film, in which Dan and Charlie (played by John Travolta) have to take care of Dan's newly discovered twins because their mom is going to jail. Sure this little tattoo anecdote is unneeded, but it is still funny. These type of scenes are what save the movie from being a complete disaster.


The plot itself has some funny parts, but Becker's direction makes the funny scenes actually funny, and the rest of the movie, well, not funny at all. Williams and Travolta are good together, but the plot still wears thin in the last third of the film. The writers seemed to run out of steam by the last third and decided to create a conflict just to have some drama. They also seemed to not know how to get the children into Williams' hands, so they just threw the mother in jail. Therefore, there is no feeling of sympathy towards Vicky (the mom) and no need to see her scenes in jail throughout the film.


Williams and Travolta are adequate, but it is the supporting and cameo roles that really shine in the film. Matt Dillon plays Barry, the testosterone-filled leader of the camp Dan, Charlie, and the two kids visit. He steals every scene he is in, and plays the macho-role to comedic, over-the-top greatness. Justin Long plays one of Dillon's employees and is convinced Travolta stole his girl in the past. Long's crazy hair, half-goatee, and wild eyes make him the funniest crazy guy in the whole film. When he starts ripping on Travolta for past sins, Williams tries to get involved and Long simply says, "My beef is not with you old woman!". This might not sound funny, but Long delivers the line with such insane seriousness it turns into a knee-slapper. There is also a tear-jerking cameo by the late Bernie Mac as puppeteer Jimmy Lunchbox. Mac's performance is perfect, and he makes everyone miss his comic talent. Luis Guzman also provides some laughs as a "babyproofer" who baby-proofs Travolta's condo.


The best scene stealer out of everyone is Seth Green. Green plays the assistant to Williams and Travolta. He thinks he's slick, cool, and smart (which he is none). Instead of coming off arrogant though, he seems friendly,naive and is hilarious at the same time. When he loses himself in the scene of Tokyo (after he is transferred due to a major account that just closed with Dan and Charlie's sports marketing company) there is a feeling that he will be missed, and this makes his return to the film a great relief.


The movie itself is just not that funny though. The chemistry between Dan and Vicki is staggeringly low, and the chemistry between Dan and his son is even lower. On the flip side, the relationship between him and his daughter (played by Travolta's actual daughter) is surprisingly sweet and heart warming. The writing is not that good, so there are no laughs without the slapstick comedy. The physical comedy is actually pretty good, there is a hilarious Frisbee game at the camp, an extremely funny situation when Dan and Charlie's pills get mixed up with crazy side-effects, and a funny break-in into the zoo where Dan's kids are having there birthday party.


This film is not nearly as bad as all the critics say, the movie starts off slow and is way too long, but the cameos are surprisingly funny and not to be missed. The movie does not know where to go and when to stop either, and the performances do not make up for that one.


Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO


**.5/***** (2.5/5 stars)

THE BLIND SIDE

John Lee Hancock's "The Blind Side" has a Nick Drake song playing over the opening credits. This is a great omen for the rest of the movie because of the use of this wonderful singer's song right? Wrong. "The Blind Side" is about a Michael Oher, a huge, undereducated boy from the bad part of Memphis who is picked up by a rich mother of two (Sandra Bullock) and given the chance to play football in college. Oher then gets drafted into the NFL and becomes a highly paid starter. Now how can Hancock make this inspirational and true story into a poorly made film? Very easily it turns out.

Hancock (who wrote and directed the film) does nothing special here. His directing is a little below par, and his writing is atrocious. The dialogue seems extremely forced and the plot moves at a sluggish pace. Hancock seems to be conflicted over who to focus on throughout the movie too. With the incredible star power of Sandra Bullock, it is hard to make Oher the actual main focus of the film (who is very well acted by Quinton Aaron), and thus the movie veers off into many unneeded side plots and scenes of both characters.For instance, there are some unneeded scenes with Bullock and her bigot housewife friends at a fancy restaurant. These housewives are meant to be an opposing force to Bullock's actions of taking in Oher and letting him live with her and her family. These scenes drag on and are pointless, it is already clear that she is doing a brave and noble thing so there is no need to waste twenty minutes trying to show it off in front of uncaring housewives.


Even Oher's childhood story is pushed aside for Bullock's star power. There are only flashes of his childhood in the film, and they lead to a conclusion that is revealed in the first third of the film. It takes the entire movie to show all the flashes put together into one scene though, and there is a feeling of being jipped by the end. There is a tiny subplot about one of Oher's friends. Even though he was athletically gifted, he dropped out of school, joined a gang, and was killed on his 21st birthday (I want to see that movie!). This is never developed though, in favor of some scenes between Bullock and her husband arguing over what to do with Oher.


Bullock tries to pull off the tough-and-loving mom role, but comes off just tough. There are all the family-film cliches though. Bullock has some "funny" dialogue showing off her command in the household (her husband sleeps on the couch "when he's bad" and other poorly written lines). There is also the racist football player who lines up against Oher in a high school football game. This provides a group hatred for him in the theater and a collective gasp when he calls Oher a "black piece of crap" (intense I know). There is also the funny little son who helps Oher train provides comic "relief" which is more like punishment than anything else. The only good performance in the film is Quinton Aaron. His portrayal of Oher is very real and sincere, if underused by Hancock.

The film, at the end of the day, is simply boring. The story is real though, and nothing can take that from the film. If you want to see and family-friendly inspirational holiday film, this is for you. It is very long though, and dry, and not very good.

Verdict: DON'T SEE IT

*.5/***** (1.5/5 stars)

FANTASTIC MR. FOX

Wes Anderson's quirky claymation comedy, "Fantastic Mr. Fox", starts right off the bat with its in-your-face and fast paced type of animation. After about 30 seconds of opening credits fast foxes and crazy animation are filling the screen every second. The film is about Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), who tries to steal chickens and alcohol/cider from three of the meanest, ugliest farmers in, well, wherever the movie takes place. The farmers Bean, Boggis, and Bunce are about as bad as villains get and are all out to kill Mr. Fox and his family for stealing from them.

The animation in "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is absolutely stunning. The water in some of the sequences looks entirely real while everything else is animated. This provides an off-putting amount of realism into a clay world, and it works magically. The clay-animation really accentuates the foxes features. So much so in fact, that way-too-close-ups are used to show how well done they are. The set design is also quite ingenious, Anderson actually lets the sets look like miniatures and it creates a fairly-tale like quality to some of the scenes as well. Fire is also just yellow paper being blown up from underneath, this reveals a nice, not-too-dangerous feeling in the climax of the film. The balance between fairy-tale and realism is split almost fifty-fifty, so it is hard to get adjusted to each scene. Some of the action scenes also happen so fast that it is incredibly hard to tell what is going on at some points.

Anderson's directing is very well-executed, but his script leaves lots to be desired. The script, which is written by Anderson and Noah Baumbach based on Roald Dahl's novel, is all over the place and has no idea what to do or where to go. There is some compensation for this in the film though with incredible voice acting. Clooney, along with Meryl Streep (who plays his wife) and a spectacular Jason Schwartzmann (who plays their son Ash) lead on all-star, if underused, voice cast. Even the hilarious Schwartzmann cannot make-up for the script though.

Anderson seems to be relying too much on the ground-breaking animation to tell the story than the actual story, which there is almost none. Mr. Fox is incredibly unlikeable as well, it is hard to have sympathy for him during the entire film and he makes everyone around him suffer for his hobby of stealing from the farmers. The script is just not that funny either. The characters are constantly in life-or-death situations and there are not that many jokes. Every time that a character is supposed to curse in the film, they say "cuss" instead for, I guess, comedic purposes. This is just one of the many things that do not work in the movie, and they more they say it, the more ridiculous it sounds. Schwartzmann is the only hilarious part of the film, as everything he says is just knee-slappingly funny because his voice is perfect for the role.

The film also lacks a satisfactory ending. The climax seems to drag on forever with no great resolution at the end, and there is not a caring feeling as to if Mr. Fox "wins" or not. There are also unnecessary comments about Mr. Fox's phobia of wolves (the reason for his phobia is never explained) and this prompts a silly and unneeded scene with a real wolf and Mr. Fox.

The soundtrack is extraordinary though, featuring Beach Boys and Rolling Stones. Anderson shows signs of promise as well, his directing is very well done, but if he gets more defined script the next time around he can really do something special. As for now, you should still see it but the film is purely mediocre.

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

**.5/***** (2.5/5 stars)

THE MESSENGER

In Oren Moverman's new film, "The Messenger", the first shot of the film is main character Sergeant Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) putting water drops into his eyes. This is an introduction into Will's life, and represents that everything in the film will be seen from his perspective.

"The Messenger" is about how Will reacts to being put on the Casualty Notification Taskforce in the U.S. after serving a gruesome tour in Iraq. He is partnered with Captain Tony Stone, marvelously played by Woody Harrelson. Stone, ironically, is cold-blooded and emotionless when informing the next of kin (which he reffers to as the N.O.K.) that one of thier loved ones was killed in action in Iraq. After Will and Tony inform a shell-shocked widow that her husband was killed in Iraq, Will becomes attracted to her and a tender relationship blooms between the two.

The film is mostly about Will finding his own path again after returning home, but some of the movie is focused on Stone as well. Will is still the main charecter of the movie, and there is only one scene without him the entire hour and 45 minutes "The Messenger" lasts. Harrelson, who plays Stone, carries most of the scenes between Stone and Will (played by Ben Foster). Foster carries the rest of the movie on his own though, and never needs a helping hand. This is most evident in his scenes with the recent widow, Kelley (played with great levity by Samantha Morton). Morton is fine, but Foster makes the dialouge and directing look so much better with his performance and really elevates the movie to whole other level. This is a Ben Foster movie, even though Harrelson as recieved a lot of buzz about his peformance, the film belongs to Foster.

It is easy to tell sometimes that this is Oren Moverman's directorial debut. The film is sporadic at times, with random scenes back-to-back that have no influence on each other. At other times though, these scenes represent the sporadicness of Will's life. He does not know what to do now that he is back, and his ex-girlfriend is getting married to a rich man while he is courting Kelley at the same time. So Will does whatever he wants, from going to a cabin with Stone and getting drunk to crashing his ex's weddng party. Moverman (who also co-wrote the film) mirrors Will's life expertly at times with this type of writing, but also loses it a little as well.

Moverman's message is clear though. War casualties are not a statistic heard on the news every night, the soldiers who die are real people with real families that hurt and bleed just like everyone else. This movie is a wake-up a call to America. The message is perfectly hidden behind the story of Will, who reveals why he is so traumatized by the war to Stone in the climax of the film. Stone, who served in Desert Storm says at one point in the movie that all he wanted was "to be shot at", and Will puts him in his place with his amazingly well-written and acted monolouge about his "firefight" in Iraq. Stone breaks down and cries after this. He realizes that being shot at in war is not what he ever wanted, and his cold-heartedness to the N.O.K. is totally undeserved.

Foster and Harrelson should both be up for Oscars, as should Moverman for his expert directing and script. Foster's perfromance is so well-done, so real that he will definenelty become a big star one day.

On the techincal side, the film is a little too long and could have used a better editor. The cinematography is brilliant though. The use of the handheld camera when Stone and Will are informing the N.O.K. might remind some of last year's well-done film "The Wrestler" because the only thing shown are the backs of the officers. There is a sense of being there with them, and it makes the reaction of the next of kin that much more impactful. At one point a grieving father says to Will, "Why aren't you over there? Huh? Answer me!". This just explains that no one wants there kids over there, they support them 100%, but death is a very real thing. It just seems so far away on the news. This is Moverman's message, and it's one we all need to hear.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

****.5/***** (4.5/5 stars)

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

When the title "Where the Wild Things Are" comes to mind, it triggers memories of a beloved children's book about a boy sent to his room for not wanting to eat dinner and then goes to a far off land to party with furry animals. What it does not trigger is a story about a boy who cannot handle his mother moving on after a divorce with another man, or about his estranged relationship with his big sister. Ironically, this is exactly what Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are" is about.

The film, as adapted by Jonze and David Eggers from Maurice Sendak's classic, is a step forward in the family film genre. Instead of giving a clear explanation as too how the main character, Max, gets to the island of the wild things, it lets the audience decide. It can be easily assumed that the island and "wild things" are all in his imagination, but why did he go there in the first place?

The first twenty minutes of the film might be the most emotionally intense ever filmed for a "children's" movie (which it is anything but). We learn that 9 year old Max is jealous of his mom's new boyfriend, and of his sister hanging out with boys more and neglecting him. Max Records, who plays Max, gives the most heartfelt performance of any child actor I have ever seen. He is Max, he is not portraying him on screen, the audience is just seeing his life unfold in the theater.

When Max starts throwing snowballs at his sister's friends, they throw some back playfully and Max hides in his igloo made from fresh fallen snow. When the boys destroy the igloo with Max inside however, he emerges from his fallen fort crying his eyes out while his sister leaves with the boys. This very real scene is countered by one in which Max refuses to eat his dinner because his mom's new boyfriend is going to eat with him too (played by Mark Ruffalo). Max runs away from his house and "travels" to the island where the wild things are.

The island is a metaphor for Max's troubles, with each wild thing representing a different part of Max's life. The first thing shown is Carol (the lead wild thing) destroying another wild thing's house. This is clearly a metaphor for when Max's igloo was destroyed. The rest of the movie is packed with metaphors and motifs, expertly written and created by Jonze and Eggers.

Jonze's adaptation has divided people into enjoying the movie or not. Some are displeased at the darkness of the film, others are intrigued by it. I am in the latter category. The script is written amazingly well, and perfectly executed by Jonze on the directing side. The special effects are a wonder and the wild things seem alive the entire movie and never look fake once. The set design for the fort Max and the wild things build and their camp are exquisitely done as well. The best technical aspect of the film is the cinematography though. The movie is mostly filmed with the handheld/ documentary style which is very effective in the real world parts of the film, and even more effective in Max's imagination. The movie never loses its realism, and it would not work if it did.

Record's performance as Max, as well as the voice acting for the wild things are perfect as well, and you see throughout the movie how each voice/thing is a part of Max's personality. Jonze's expert direction reveals this slowly, and as the wild things are further explored, it is shown that they aren't the nicest people either. Max discovers this just in time to realize his own fault too.

"Where the Wild Things Are" is about growing up and maturing to the situation that is dealt. Max has to do this faster than lots of other kids his age, and the only way he can is by delving into the deepest corners of himself (represented by the island). This is the only way he will learn his lesson.

This is quite possibly the best film of the year, I cannot find one thing wrong to write down. The film can be analyzed for days on end, and that's the utter beauty of it. Or it can just be entertaining, but an open mind is the best way to approach this movie because this is a drama, not a child or family film. This should be a serious contender for all Oscars, including Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay.

Verdict: GO SEE IT!

*****/***** (5/5 stars)

THE FOURTH KIND

This is my first review so cut me a little slack, lol.

In one of the last scenes of "The Fourth Kind", we see Dr. Abagail Tyler spilling her guts in front of the camera about how aliens have ruined her life. Sound ridiculous? In lots of other movies it probably would, but if fits seamlessly in this taught, intense, creepy thriller from second-time director Olatunde Osunsanmi.

There are actually two movies in "The Fourth Kind", one of them is a reenactment starring Milla Jovovich as Dr. Tyler and the other features "original" footage of the alien encounters portrayed in the film (whose authenticity can be debated). Osunsanmi's starategy works brilliantly in the first half of the film.

The screen is actually split in two, one side with the film and the other with the "real" footage. Having this footage brings an extra creepiness to the events in the film, even though it might not be real. Unbelievable things happen in both versions and it adds a scary amount to realism to what could have been another cliche alien-abduction film.

The movie seems to falter toward the second-half though. Every single time something scary happens, the "real" footage goes to static or snow, so we are only left with the reenactment to see, which makes the movie lose lots of gravity in the situations. The most important scene of the film, the last time the aliens come to Tyler's house, is covered in snow with only the audio playing. Instead of being creeped out with a Hitchcock less-is-more feeling, there is just a feeling of being cheated. There is about two minutes of people screaming and nothing is shown.

The editing is to be commended here. "The Fourth Kind" has some of the cleverest editing done in a sci-fi film (the split-screen being extremley effective). Although the film is about 5-10 minutes too long, the editing really makes up for it, because every time the "real" audio or video comes up, an alarm goes off in the audience's head that something bad is about to happen.

Also, Jovovich gives an extremley real and effective performance. Elias Koteas, as Jovovich's friend/doctor Albert Campos, is as good as ever and is still one of the most underrated actors in the U.S. Writer/Director Osunsanmi should be congragulated for pulling the wool over the audiences eyes with the "real" footage (it's just to good to be true!), and his vision of even having the "real" audio and video in the first place should be congragulated as well.

"The Fourth Kind" does not have one spot of humor in it, which makes it hard to sit through. There is also no real closure at the end. I like think-for-yourself endings ("The Fountain" and "The Blair Witch Project" are two), but in this film there is just too much left to speculation. There are too many loose ends that are never tied up, and the ending message of the movie is less than hopeful (to put it lightly). Only Tyler is likeable by the end of the film, but at the same time it's debatable if Tyler is even telling the truth.There are plenty of topics to think about after though...

Verdict: WAIT FOR VIDEO

***/***** (3/5 stars)

Hello World!

Hey, I am here to bring movie reviews to you. The people of the world. I am not a revered critic who just likes the art house movies and none of the mainstream ones. Some are good and bad in both categories. I like the movies you average moviegoers like. You can trust me.

I divide my reviews into 3 categories:
"Go See It"
"Wait For Video"
"Don't See It"

I will also give a star review (out of five) for each film.

Movies are an art, but they are also meant to be enjoyable and entertaining!