REVIEW: Puss in Boots 3D

MOVIE
Puss in Boots

CAST
Antonio Banderas,
Salma Hayek

RATING
PG

RELEASE
October 28, 2011

DIRECTOR
Chris Miller

STUDIO(S)
DreamWorks Animation,
Paramount Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 30 minutes



STARS
****











REVIEW:


'Shrek 2' was not only one of the best animated sequels ever, but it was also the introduction of one of the most popular animated felines ever, Puss in Boots. Now because the 'Shrek' series has been beaten to a pulp, DreamWorks has decided to take Puss in Boots and put him in the spotlight for once. The title of the film, of course, is 'Puss in Boots,' and he may just be the cutest and most vibrant cat to ever be put on film, or in this case 3D. DreamWorks has really amped up its game, which started with last March's highly successful 'How To Train Your Dragon.' Since then, crude humor and bathroom jokes weren't the sole focus of the jokes in their films. Sure there might be one or two, but for now it's all about the heart. 'Puss in Boots' has some heart, some bathroom jokes, and a whole lot of perfect comedic timing. Many will not realize that this movie is really a prequel to the 'Shrek' series, or at least 'Shrek 2,' so it gives the filmmakers the chance to explore the fairy tale world, this time giving us characters as Jack & Jill and Humpty Dumpty. Kids will enjoy 'Puss in Boots,' but parents may enjoy it much more so. The film has a lot of jokes that will go over many kids heads, which is a given being we get adult humor in a movie about a Mexican cat. 'Kung Fu Panda 2' opened up earlier this year and it was great, though despite the lack of a lot of heart and more crude jokes, 'Puss in Boots' is the more enjoyable one. If there is one perfect 3D movie to come out before Disney and Spielberg jump onto the American scene, that movie would be 'Puss in Boots.'


Imagine all of these fairy tale creatures trying to look for one specific thing in order to become rich. What would they look for? They'd probably be looking for the Golden Eggs from the Golden Goose up the beanstalk thanks to three magic beans. Thank you Jack for giving us the story of the beanstalk, in case you didn't quite catch on to that. Basically it's Puss, Humpty, Kitty Softpaws, and Jack & Jill in a race against time in order to get up the beanstalk and retrieve the magical golden goose so they can live in rich heaven forever. Pretty sweet, right? DreamWorks has always a master at giving the audience a vibrant story and spectacular 3D. Ever since they jumped onto the 3D wagon with 2009's 'Monsters vs. Aliens,' their picture quality and scale has grown so large, with 3D adding an awesome sense of depth that makes you feel like you can touch the beautiful worlds that they create. Aside from 'Kung Fu Panda 2' and 'Harry Potter,' this is some of the best 3D use I've seen all year. If you have the choice on the format to check the movie out in, I'd highly suggest paying the extra $3-$5 that it will take to buy a 3D ticket. How many movies have I said that in all year?

With every awesome animated movie, you have to have a great cast in order to fully execute the epicness of a 3D kids flick. 'Puss in Boots' of course follows that trend. Antonio Banderas reprises the role in this prequel, and he is amazing for what the role requires. He's basically taking his role of "Zorro" and putting that into the most adorable cat ever put on a 3D screen. He has some of the movie's best lines, and he's just downright hilarious in the role. Salma Hayek is also in it, and she's good for what she's required to play. You also have Billy Bob Thorton and Amy Sedaris as the butch, ass kicking beasts that are Jack and Jill. They are just plain awesome, which in itself rocks because they're great actors. However as much as all of these characters are great, there is one who is the clear show stealer. That, my bloggers, is Zach Galifanakis putting his voice into Humpty Dumpty, the anti-hero of the story. Whenever something would come out of Dumpty's mouth, I would almost instantaneously burst out laughing, because he had some of the best lines in any animated film this year. There was one scene in the movie where Humpty is trying to literally talk to the three magic beans and once that started, I couldn't help but LOL. I actually think I might have been the only one laughing, just saying. Not even Banderas can keep up with the comedic awesomeness that is Zach Galifanakis. Who knows where he would be if 'The Hangover' was never made.

In terms of quality animated movies this year, DreamWorks seems to be the clear winner for the year. Sure 'Cars 2' was enjoyable and 'Winnie the Pooh' was fantastic, but DreamWorks had a great sequel this summer, and now a fun prequel that could even be considered to be better than the original 'Shrek' movies that started it all. There is an awesome cast, hilarious jokes, some heart, and spectacular 3D. Could we really ask for much more in a family movie? If 'The Muppets,' 'Happy Feet Two,' and/or 'The Adventures of Tintin' turn out to be lackluster kids flicks, then 'Puss in Boots' may be the best family movie of the fall/winter season. My four star grade may be steep for this type of film, but you're not supposed to take anything in this film seriously. Just hop into a theater seat, put on your ridiculous 3D glasses, and enjoy the ride. Adults will enjoy this movie as much, maybe even more than little kids who just came to see a cute little kitty. Well kids, Puss is not just a cute kitty, he is a ruthless legendary warrior who has sworn to protect the innocent. Come on, how cool is that? Why are you still reading this? Take your family and see 'Puss in Boots,' or else you'll be missing out on a truly fun 3D adventure!





 

PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Happy Feet Two

Hugo

Arthur Christmas

The Adventures of Tintin

The Secret World of Arrietty

The Lorax

REVIEW: In Time

MOVIE
In Time

CAST
Justin Timberlake,
Amanda Seyfried

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 28, 2011

DIRECTOR
Andrew Niccol

STUDIO(S)
20th Century Fox,
Regency Enterprises

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 49 minutes






STARS
**1/4











REVIEW:
 
The hit song '4 Minutes' has just been turned into a metaphorical sci-fi flick, and it's called 'In Time.' Justin Timberlake's character Will Salsa (sorry, I meant Salas) lives in a world where time is the world's currency rather than money, so the rich can live forever while the poor try to just get through one day at a time. An original and awesome concept should not have just been an okay movie, but unfortunately it was. The trailers for the film made the movie look like a sleek action thriller with some cool sci-fi elements. However what was really served was a sappy romantic thriller with lots of running and little sci-fi. How could Timberlake, who only a year ago portrayed Sean Parker in 'The Social Network' pick such a poor script? Was it to "work" with Amanda Seyfried? The answer is unknown, but the important thing is that 'In Time' is the biggest disappointment of the fall season so far.


The acting was average for this type of movie. You had your good actors, like Justin Timberlake (in parts) and Cillian Murphy, and you had your wooden actors like Amanda Seyfried, who plays Sylvia, and Vincent Kartheiser, the guy who plays Sylvia's rich daddy. Justin Timberlake is not as terrible as you'd think except in one "emotional" scene where he's apparently trying to sob his eyes out. He's good for what the movie is, so let's leave it at that. Cillian Murphy is good in almost anything he's in, and he may be the best thing this film has to offer. Murphy may become the new William Fichtner, indicating that he almost always steals the show in any movie he's in. I know he did when he played Scarecrow in 'Batman Begins.' The one role that really surprised me was Alex Pettyfer as the leader of a mob squad called the "Minutemen," who at the beginning of the film is trying to get as much time as he can get his wrist (literally) on. Pettyfer is the same guy who was in the average 2011 flicks 'Beastly' and 'I Am Number Four,' as well as the fun but unknown 'Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker.' It turns out that when he's using his native Australian accent rather than a cheap American accent, Pettyfer can really be a good actor. He and Cillian Murphy to me make the film, with Timberlake coming in a distant third or fourth. Now, let's get onto the baddies of the flick.

Amanda Seyfried was good in 'Mamma Mia!,' and I heard she was great (and naked) in 'Chloe,' so I had hopes that she would be good. Unfortunately, what Seyfried executes in this film is the clichéd rich chick who wants to break free of her rich dad's clutches and when she does, she doesn't like it. I honestly think that the reason why Seyfried was cast for the role was to A.) attract men, B.) shoot a gun, and C.) get into a bra and make teen boys feel happy somewhere. Seyfried is a good actress when she puts her mind to it, but she just was bad in this movie. Then there's this actor who I've never heard of named Vincent Kartheiser who is the end all be all Razzie award winning actor of the year. There are planks next to a shed that my neighbor is building, and their acting could not have been as wooden or hollow as Kartheiser's acting. I've never seen him in anything, and his face looks pretty new to Hollywood, but he makes actors in a crappy spoof movie look like decent movie players. He was the worst, and that's that. The film also delivers small roles with Johnny Galecki and Olivia Wilde, who serve absolutely no purpose to the film but are decent actors. Why does Hollywood have to limit the good and 'Big Bang' actors in big budget A-star flicks?

The editing of the film is quite poor throughout. After (SPOILER!) Olivia Wilde dies from her time running out and Timberlake is sobbing his fake cries out, (END SPOILER!) he just goes on into the rich time zone with his new amount of time with no reaction to what happened 10 seconds later. What the hell is with that? You see fellow audience members, this is what happens when Fox releases a movie that's not as big as 'X-Men' or 'Planet of the Apes.' I blame Fox for their crappy movies because almost all of their movies either leaves out the real plot of the film, succeeded in choppy editing, or combining both elements to make a crappy movie. This film only did the second element, but the second element decreased from what could have been a solid sci-fi action flick. Andrew Niccol is a good screenwriter, having written 'The Truman Show' and 'The Terminal.' (I guess a "The" at the beginning of a title makes everything better) However his directing techniques are not as good. This sci-fi thriller turned into a sappy romantic thriller almost instantaneously, and who really wants to see that when what people came to see here was an awesome action movie set in the future. I still give Niccol props for coming up with one of the coolest metaphors to everyday life in recent history. Not many people have the creative mind of Niccol, and that should get some street credit in Hollywood.

This would be a great movie to see a director's cut for, because I could tell that Fox cut out important plot points in order to get Timberlake and Seyfried either into the next do or die situation or just running from nothing. A prime example of a 2011 film that would have been good if it wasn't chopped down originally was 'Sucker Punch.' The Zack Snyder movie was edited down to a PG-13 rating in order to get younger audiences into this nerd-tastic movie. Then for the Blu-Ray release Snyder released an R rated extended cut that put pieces of the storyline back together, hence a better movie. 'In Time' had a good movie inside of it, but the makers of the movie just couldn't get that greatness out. It's still amazing how such a cool premise and such a good cast could end up being in a mediocre movie. It's not bad as many things that have come out this year, but it is now on the now huge list of 2011's biggest disappointments. I don't regret spending two hours of my life sitting through this movie, but those two hours of my time could have been used in a better movie. The clocks ticking people, so are you going to see this movie or not?






PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:


Immortals
 The Sitter
 Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
 The Grey
 Contraband
 This Means War

FESTIVAL REVIEW: Anonymous

MOVIE
Anonymous

CAST
Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 28, 2011

DIRECTOR
Roland Emmerich

STUDIO
Columbia Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 9 minutes





STARS
***1/2












REVIEW:


Was he, or was he not? That, is the question asked in Roland Emmerich's (yes, the guy who directed 'Independence Day' and '2012') latest film 'Anonymous.' 'Anonymous' is about a possibly true past where William Shakespeare might not have been the author of his poems and plays. The true author, according to historians and the film itself, might have been Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. Unlike today, government officials writing plays and poems was considered a "sin" and "works of the devil" by even higher officials like Queen Elizabeth I and those snooty men persuading Queen Elizabeth to their side. Of everything coming out during Oscar season, this may be the most controversial film to come out because of the context of the story. But believe it or not, 'Anonymous' isn't exactly about the whole "Is Shakespeare a fraud?" story. The film really tells the tale of the scrambled lifetime of de Vere, which is filled with scandal, affairs, and of course, poems. The Shakespeare aspect of the film is more of a subplot rather than the main focus, mostly because the film shifts throughout time and characters at a somewhat confusing rate, which is one of the many reasons why I enjoyed 'Anonymous.' The movie is not for the average moviegoer, unless the average moviegoer can follow what time periods you're in at certain points. 'Anonymous' is a powerful, epic drama that is the perfect thinking film for a group of cinephiles, yet can be slow and confusing at certain points.

The movie opens with a man telling the story of the film on a stage in front of a big audience. We then transition into an event in the past, where we then go even further back in time throughout the movie. When we first visit these points in time, a title card comes up that say "five years earlier" or something like that. After that first moment into the certain points in time, we, the audience, is supposed to recognize characters at certain ages when we jump back to those times throughout the movie. This can be considered confusing by many upon a first viewing. Even people told me after the screening that it felt very confusing at parts. Let me put it to you this way: if you could follow exactly what happened in such recent films like 'Inception' and 'The Tree of Life,' then you may be able to follow along in 'Anonymous.' I personally felt that this added to the movie, because even though it didn't quite pin point what time you’re in at a certain moment, it still shows a troublesome and sickening past that belonged to the Earl of Oxford, which helps you feel for the guy when Shakespeare is getting the credit that the Earl is so deserving of. The emotional aspect might get drained out because of the confusing editing of the film, but nonetheless the emotion will get into some audience goers.

Got to love the British for being so damn talented, right? In fact, the entire cast I believe (including that narrator dude on a modern stage at the beginning of the trailer) is in fact British. Included in the cast is Rhys Ifans (Adrian from 'Little Nicky') , Oscar winner Vanessa Redgrave, and David Thewlis (Professor Lupin from 'Harry Potter'). Everyone in this film is fantastic, Ifans and Redgrave especially deserving of award nominations. It is hard to pick who exactly are the lead actors and actresses, because of the constant flashbacks and cuts to different characters throughout the film. I'd say that this is more of an ensemble cast film revolved around one of the most controversial subject matters in history. Possibly the best and sliest character of the film is in fact Will Shakespeare.

The movie depicts Shakespeare as being a womanizer, a drunk, and a bit of an ass. The guy who played him, Rafe Spell, gives off a bit of a Heath Ledger persona, which I found to be an added bonus to the character. Plus, Spell actually looks a bit like Ledger if you put two pictures of them together. Of course, there are those obnoxious Brits who say that plays and poems are "works of the devil" and such. The snooty characters in those shoes, while menacing, are a bit annoying and act like "creepers" for most of the movie. This is not a joke, mainly because there is this one guy, who happens to be the son of David Thewlis' ass of a character, is just coming into the room looking like he has a Hunch, Ba-dum chi, trying to look like a combination of a Hunchback and Crispin Glover in 'Alice in Wonderland.' Other than the creepers being good yet annoying, the cast is quite excellent.

Director Roland Emmerich made the wisest decision of his career with 'Anonymous.' He has gone from making visually astounding but incredibly stupid disaster films to a real work of art. Sure this film may not do as well financially, especially due to its artsy yet epic feel, but it is a good time nevertheless. The performances are excellent, the script (written by John Orloff) is well written/smart, and Emmerich's wide scope fits well into what could have been a boring drama about the Shakespeare conspiracy. There was only one other conspiracy movie to come out this year, and that was Robert Redford's 'The Conspirator,' and that was about whether Mary Surrat was guilty or not about participating in the Lincoln assassination. Out of those two, this is clearly the better one, and more seductive one.

Just like Queen Elizabeth with the Earl of Oxford, this movie will lure you in and take everything you have, while you get a sense of pleasure about it. 'Anonymous' may be hard to find this fall, but it's something that you won't regret seeing after leaving the auditorium. This is the perfect movie to see with your friends and discuss your views on Shakespeare after leaving. I believe the only other film to do that this year was 'The Help,' and that was to see what people thought of the film in terms of the book. Mr. Emmerich, I salute you, because despite not having many films outside of disaster flicks to have on your resume, 'Anonymous' is your masterpiece, and it should be seen by anyone looking to learn something and get confused unless you have a focused mind and can keep track of what time period you're in at a certain moment.

REVIEW: The Three Musketeers 3D

MOVIE
The Three Musketeers

CAST
Logan Lerman, Milla Jovovich

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 21, 2011

DIRECTOR
Paul W.S. Anderson

STUDIO
Summit Entertainment

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 51 minutes






STARS
**1/2











REVIEW:

Rum, swearing, swords, and chicks. The latest adaptation of the classic 'Three Musketeers' story has all of that, plus a huge pile of corniness plopped on like stuffing at a school luncheon. I personally wasn't looking entirely forward to seeing 'The Three Musketeers,' mainly because I didn't think it looked very interesting. Plus from the trailers you saw shades of wooden acting, tons of CGI, useless 3D, pointless romances, etc. However when the credits started rolling, I metaphorically stared at myself and realized that all the things in the trailer that ticked me off were actually all of the reasons why I enjoyed the movie. Sure it may be the stupidest thing to come out all year, but I just sat back and had a fun time. I doubt that many adults will flock to the theater and see this, because I know right now that 60-80% of regular adults will not like this film. For example, my dad hated 'The Green Hornet' (ironically also with Christolph Waltz who plays a bad guy in this movie) when he took a few friends of mine, myself, and my family to see it. I enjoyed that film for its utter stupidity, and that's exactly why I liked this movie. Young boys will love it, and a select group of audience members will enjoy it. The movie is supposed to be subpar, so why not just go in and just enjoy yourself. Sure it maybe the dumbest two hours you spend in a theater this year, but all you have to do is sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. It's nothing near perfection, but 'The Three Musketeers' is a stupid, pointless, yet fun time at the movies, as long as 2D is your only option.


SYNOPSIS: (Courtesy of Fandango.com)
D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) leaves his home in rural France to fulfill his ambition of becoming one of the king's elite guardsmen, the Musketeers. In Paris he meets Athos (Matthew MacFadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) -- three of the king's finest swordsmen, who have been laid low by Milady De Winter's (Milla Jovovich) betrayal. D'Artagnan rallies his new friends to foil Cardinal Richelieu's (Christoph Waltz) plot to overthrow the monarchy and crown himself king of France

I honestly think that director Paul W.S. Anderson of the 'Resident Evil' franchise really wanted to make this movie as crappy as possible. One of the ways that the movie tries to be bad is the way the script is written. I've never read the original 'Three Musketeers' stories before or saw any of the movies, (other than a Mickey Mouse version several years back) so I had no previous experience with the famous tale. However I can say that they made this movie way to modern for fans of the original tale. The only time you ever believe you’re in the olden times is during the exterior shots and this one scene at the beginning of the film involving the young Musketeer D'Artagnan training with his father. Other than that, the film never feels like an old tale reinvented. It's more like a high tech, potty mouthed, modern version of 'The Three Musketeers.' You have flying ships for crying out loud, plus words like s**t and a** used frequently by The Musketeers and the people around them. I highly doubt that the generation with "Where are thou, Romeo?" used modern day language. It's not just the modern language and the obscene sci fi/modern elements that make this movie stupid, it's also because of the predictable plot points that even an infant could figure out. I just spent an entire paragraph writing about the script, but that's not even the worst thing about the movie: the acting is.

The "all-star" cast of this movie includes Logan Lerman of the 'Percy Jackson' movie, Academy Award winning actor (Nazi in 'Inglorious Bastards') Christolph Waltz, and Orlando Bloom of 'Pirates of the Caribbean' and 'Lord of the Rings.' Of all of the actors in this film, my favorite ones were Orlando Bloom and Christolph Waltz. Sure they were villains, but to me they were the most interesting characters of the film, though it isn't exactly saying much. They were still pretty bad overall, but they had more substance than the other actors did. Logan Lerman is supposed to be the character we look up to and love, which apparently the audience at my screening did. It still doesn't change the fact that his acting was as wooden as a log cabin. Don't worry Lerman fans; he's not the worst part of this movie. Unfortunately gentleman, Milla Jovovich is the worst thing in this movie.

The only time I've ever seen her in a movie was the 2001 comedy 'Zoolander,' and she could really kick ass in that film. Come to today, over a decade later, and she's stuck in movies directed by her husband, Paul W.S. Anderson, which to me is very unfortunate. This character wasn't even relevant to the story, she just seemed to be there for killing people in slow-mo fashion, making out with bearded men, and saying the dumbest catchphrase lines the world has ever heard. The actress is talented, I can say, but she really needs to stop doing 'Resident Evil' movies and get on with a more interesting career. The rest of the cast, including the title characters, are pretty bad, but they can be funny at the right times and kick some ass during the battle sequences.

So is 'The Three Musketeers' a great movie? No. Is it a bad movie? Yes and no. What I mean by that is, this movie has the potential of being the next 'Plan 9 from Outer Space,' meaning it's so bad you just go along for the ride and enjoy yourselves. I went in believing that this movie was going to suck beyond belief. I even was planning on calling the film "a tour-de-fart" if I hated the film so much. Unfortunately I can't use that creative line on this film, because this movie didn't suck. I mean, it did, but I enjoyed the awful factors of the film. The acting is wooden, the script is awful and predictable, and the 3D is cool but useless. I will however give the film credit for keeping the audience focused and in a fun mood with its creative plan in the end and the cool action scenes. Kids will enjoy it, but parents will be a mixed bag. I give you parents two options: either take your kids to an early morning 2D matinee show, or just rent the Charlie Sheen version and watch it at home. I had fun with this movie, and that's where I'm going to leave it. 'The Three Musketeers' is all cheese, yet very fun overall.

REVIEW: The Big Year

MOVIE
The Big Year

CAST
Jack Black, Steve Martin,
Owen Wilson

RATING
PG

RELEASE
October 14, 2011

DIRECTOR
David Frankel

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 40 minutes





STARS
**









REVIEW:

Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson, also known as three of Hollywood’s funniest actors, are in a movie about bird watching, which also happens to come from the director of 'Marley & Me.' From that alone, I was instantly sold. However the trailer for the film came out a mere five weeks ago, and it was one of the worst trailers that I've seen all year, sitting right next to the 'Dream House' trailer. What you may think is a movie about three guys trying to pull off a "bucket list" type deal is actually about three guys trying to see the most birds in one year for the sake of competition. A dumb premise, but we just have to live with it, right? Well unfortunately I couldn't. It may have a nice cast and an interesting plot about birds, but I just couldn't get myself into liking 'The Big Year.' What could have been a hilarious and heartwarming comedy was a rushed, boring, and kind of lame movie with the type of sweetness that's being forced onto you. The same thing was done back in June with 'Mr. Popper's Penguins,' and we all know how that turned out. A bit of irony from Fox, who released both 'Popper' and 'Big Year,' because it seems that the only time a movie released by Fox is actually good is when the studio lets the director edit the movie and trailers rather than doing it themselves. Watch the trailer for this movie if you don't believe me. The film is edited poorly, jumping through many months at some points just for the sake of getting this movie under two hours. Almost everything in this movie was flawed with touch, which made what could have been a fun time a huge disappointment. Overall, 'The Big Year' is a big disappointment for me.


The cast is fine for what they are, but I wished that there characters could have been more slapstick and comedic than mellow and sweet. Owen Wilson plays the exact same character he played in last year's 'How Do You Know.' In case you haven't seen that movie, here's exactly what the two characters are: a self-centered, narcissistic person with an ugly obsession. Wilson is a guy who will stop at nothing to keep his worldwide birding record intact, even if that means missing a few days needed with his wife. This character to me was very annoying, with his every move so predictable that there was no surprise with him at all. Jack Black and Steve Martin play two guys who soon become friends throughout the year. While these guys had a nice chemistry together, the only comedy that they could rely on most of the time was them getting hit by something, falling over in the aftermath. We also get one or two fat jokes that make you just say "ugh" while in your seat. The cast is fine, but they could have been developed so much more. The same thing goes for the supporting cast members, including Rashida Jones and Jim "Sheldon Cooper" Parsons. These characters were undeveloped and served very little purpose for the film itself, plus having about 5-20 minutes of screen time at an average. I was disappointed that Parsons didn't have a very big part, because he is hilarious on 'The Big Bang Theory.' He is just one of those characters that serves no purpose to the film itself and is just, well, there. Quite a disappointed 'Big Bang' fan here.

Have you ever put too much sugar into your cup of tea, making it so sweet you'll want to throw it away almost immediately? That is exactly what 'The Big Year;' a comedy that's too sweet for my appetite. Sure it may have some average acting from its three main leads and some sweet moments between them, but the comedy of the film is scattered throughout the movie so far that I was wondering when something funny would happen. David Frankel directed 2008's surprise hit 'Marley & Me,' and that was the perfect example of a sweet dramady, so it is sad when Frankel can jump from 'Marley' to a bird watching movie. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, but I couldn't get myself around all of the missing comedy and predictable plot points. I imagine that there will be many people who will buy into the sweetness of the film, but I was just not sucking the sugary plot up. If you have the undying urge to see this movie, then I'd suggest a rental at best. There is no purpose of paying $10 a ticket to see this movie, where you can see it for a dollar in about 5-6 months. I wish 'The Big Year' was one of the year's best films, but unfortunately it isn't. 'The Big Year' disappoints in many ways, which is very sad because of its awesome cast. I would have rather sat in a field watching birds for three hours then seeing this movie again. I'm sorry Hollywood, but 'The Big Year' is not very good.








PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Johnny English Reborn


Jack and Jill


Happy Feet Two


We Bought A Zoo


The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel


This Means War

REVIEW: Footloose (2011 Remake)

MOVIE

Footloose

CAST
Kenny Wormald, Julianne Hough

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 14, 2011

DIRECTOR
Craig Brewer

STUDIO(S)
Paramount Pictures,
MTV Films

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 53 minutes






STARS
****









REVIEW:

Remakes are a very tough grab in Hollywood, but they are very easy to sell to the general audiences.  Whether they are campy 80s remakes or remakes of bad but fun movies, it's almost as if Hollywood is trying to give the kids from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and soon 90s kids a sense of deja vu.  Let's face it, remakes will never go away, but sometimes there is that one, that special one that turns out to be something quite exceptional.  Ladies and gentlemen, that is the case with 'Footloose,' the remake of the 1980s Kevin Bacon classic.  What could have been just another dumb remake for teens was a well made, somewhat intense movie with incredible dancing and some solid acting from lead actors Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough, toe tapping remakes of classic 'Footloose' songs, and high energy dance moves that could be considered better than any featured in the 'Step Up' movies. 

In case you have no idea what the story of 'Footloose' is, it's very simple: A few years prior to when the movie begins, five teens from a small Midwestern town of Bomont were killed in a car crash coming home from a dance.  Because of this, public dancing is a violation of the law there.  Ren McCormick (Wormald), a Boston boy who's recently lost both parents moves to Bomont to live with his aunt and uncle.  His introduction to Bomont?  Getting issued a ticket for driving with the radio blasting rock & roll.  Shocked and angered, McCormick goes on a mission to abolish this unnecessary law and mobilize the kids in town to stand up for what they believe in.

I have only seen half of the original 'Footloose,' so I can't exactly make the shot for shot comparison.  However from what I've seen and been told by many close to me, this movie is almost exactly like the original.  The only main difference between the two is the time that each take place in, which means different dancing moves and different songs, or the same song but set to the modern vibe.  The tone of this film is sexy, funny, and rough, which is exactly what it needs to be.  The drama of the film comes from the teens in Bomont who want to rebel in any way possible, even if that means getting in trouble with their parents or even with the law.  I like how the parents of Bomont are so mournful that they can't let go of the tragedy that was.  Sure they go a bit extreme on it in terms of the law, but it fit perfectly into this teen flick.  The movie is so wonderful because not only does it provide fun entertainment for the teen factor, but it also teaches the viewers that it's okay to hold onto tragedies, but you have to let go of them soon. 

The casting in this movie could not have been more pitch perfect. Newcomer Kenny Wormald is fantastic as Ren. His portrayal of the lonely bad boy who has a thing for the preacher's daughter was flawless. No, it's nothing Award-worthy, aside from an MTV movie award, but his role is great, and I can't wait to see how far Wormald goes in Hollywood. Another great performance comes from Julianne Hough, of  "Dancing With The Stars" fame. She has all the characteristics of turning a teen guy on. She has the pop, the flare, the mood, and especially the sexy heat. It's sad when people automatically dismiss hot young actresses as bad ones, because this girl can seriously act! Hough is fantastic playing what I like to call "the town tart." She is skanky, fierce, and just downright scared out of her mind.  Plus, as an added bonus, her hot pants couldn't get any shorter. See America, there's something for everyone in this movie.

There are two big adult names in supporting roles: Dennis Quaid, who is great as the town preacher, and Andie McDowell as his wife.  In this film, Quaid's acting has stepped up to the top, giving a very intense, emotional performance, and it may possibly be his best performance on film.  I doubt nominations will be up his alley, but Quaid owns this role, and he has never been better.  As for McDowell, it was nice to see her in a movie again.  She plays the peacemaker  between her husband and daughter, and does so in a very subtle but moving way, so it adds a sense of heart to the dying love between her somewhat crazy husband and tramp of a daughter.  The only other film I have seen her in is the classic Bill Murray comedy 'Groundhog Day,' which is a very moving comedy.  She's not terrible, and she's not excellent, but this is the kind of movie that she most definitely needed.  A supporting cast as fantastic as the main leads?  How can you pass that up?

"Footloose" is that rare remake that can stand alone as its own movie.  Sure there are the expected clichés put in throughout, and the dialogue can sometimes be very cheesy.  However that's expected from the remake of one of the cheesiest 80s movie ever made.  The leads were fantastic, the story was cool yet predictable, and the dancing will make you jealous as hell!  If there is anything coming out in October that I can ensure you is a well deserved "must see film," then get you ass' to the movie theater on October 14 and get ready cut loose.  So far this year, I have not seen a single movie twice in theaters.  I may possibly break that rule with 'Footloose.'  Don't worry, I'll see the entire original film and write a review about it.  But for now, enjoy the sleek and fun teen movie with humor, heart, and drama to appeal to many.  Let's Dance!

REVIEW: Dream House

MOVIE
Dream House

CAST
Daniel Craig, Naomi Watts

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
September 30, 2011

DIRECTOR
Jim Sheridan

STUDIO
Universal Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 31 minutes




STARS
**






REVIEW:

A buddy of mine wanted to check this movie out, so I decided to go with him for the sake of a review. 'Dream House' is about a family that moves into this house, and everything is not what it seems. This film is one of the many horror flicks to have come out during this year, including 'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark' and 'Scre4m,' yet it's also on the continuing trend of not being scary at all. This is actually the first horror movie I decided to check out this year, ('Attack the Block' was a horror/comedy, so it doesn't count) so I had high hopes for it. Despite having extremely mediocre reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, (an 8%) I went in with a positive attitude just waiting to be chilled to the bone. I didn't jump once in this movie, primarily because all three of the "jump" sequences were given away in the trailer.

The huge twists of the movie were also given away in the trailer, so there was really no point in going to pay to see this movie if you have already seen the trailer. That's one of the reasons why this movie isn't that scary: because all of the twists are given away in a matter of two and a half minutes! There was a decent movie in here somewhere, but it was locked away and raped to death because of the one trailer released for the movie. If you want to enjoy this movie in the best way possible, DON'T WATCH THE EMBEDDED TRAILER BELOW! If you have seen the trailer, that sucks because you might have actually enjoyed 'Dream House.' It's not a terrible movie, but it could have been much better, considering the fact that this was originally rated R by the MPAA.
The acting in this film isn't as bad as you think it would be, believe it or not. Daniel Craig gives it all he's got, and he plays his twisted part quite well. Rachel Weisz and Naomi Watts are also pretty good, but nothing special comes out of their performances. The characters do add a nice suspense into the story, despite the suspense already taken out by the trailer. I apologize for talking about the trailer so much, but it's the truth. Don't watch it, just ask a friend who has seen the trailer if it spoils the movie, where they will say YES. Enough said. Getting back to the cast, they were fine to see, but they weren't fantastic or Oscar worthy for the matter.

I wouldn't exactly call this movie a horror film at all. It's more of a mystery-thriller than a straight up horror flick. I kind of liked that about the movie, because it gives the viewer a thinking element needed during the hour and a half you'll be spending watching the film. There were some interesting twists in the movie that would have been great if, you know the rest. This movie is like a weirder episode of some dumb soap opera like 'All My Children,' where some twists are played out in a very interesting way. I swear there are only three jump scenes in this movie, yet they don't exactly matter because of the cheapness of them. There's no point of even having them because there's no addition to the film from the cheap scares. In fact, they were somewhat laughable to watch. When the little girl says "there's something outside, look over there," you know that in the next split second something will slam onto the window with everyone screaming in the end. Teens will like it because it makes them think of how crazy Daniel Craig's character might actually be. It's an intriguing concept with a good mystery element, but it could have been so much better.

The trailer spoiled it all, so if you saw it, there's nothing to see when you check out 'Dream House.' Once the twists of the movie have been unveiled, you know exactly what's going to happen in the end. That's why watching the trailer would be really stupid to do if you wanted to check this film out. The acting's fine but not great, the story is cool yet predictable, and the scares are dumb and very cheap. The mystery element of the flick was quite interesting, yet there was barely anything that can be put into the "horror" genre. Jim Sheridan not only directed 'Dream House,' but he is one of the most respected filmmakers in Hollywood. He was locked out of the editing room during post production on 'Dream House,' so I blame Universal for the mediocre marketing and the poor result of a film. If Sheridan was able to get the editing rights to his movie, then things might have actually been better than this.

If you want to see this, renting it with no knowledge of the movie is the safest route to go, because then you might actually really enjoy the movie. Any other way of seeing it is somewhat pointless. Why would you even want to watch a movie where you already know the important twists that are supposed to be kept secret? I knew the ending of 'The Sixth Sense' before watching it, but I still enjoyed it nonetheless. 'Dream House' could have been a scary as s**t mystery. However because of the poor marketing/editing, and the small running time given, I have to say that I walked out legitimately disappointed. Boo! Was that scary? I didn't think so.




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

The Big Year

J. Edgar

Tower Heist

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Contraband



(WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK!!)

REVIEW: Real Steel

MOVIE
Real Steel

CAST
Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 7, 2011

DIRECTOR
Shawn Levy

STUDIO(S)
DreamWorks Pictures,
Touchstone Pictures (Disney)

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 7 minutes




STARS
***1/2








REVIEW:

Damn, you just have to love Disney at this point right now. Not only have they been responsible for such movies as 'Toy Story' and 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' but they have also been very smart in terms of distribution rights this year. Sure their year started out poor when 'I Am Number Four' came out, but they still had Steven Spielberg and the DreamWorks crew on their side, releasing such films as 'The Help' and 'Fright Night' this past August. What's next up their sleeve you might ask, so here it is: 'Rocky' meets 'Wolverine' meets robots. It may sound very stupid at first, but 'Real Steel' somehow works around the cheesy premise to make an awesome action movie with the added bonus of a father/son relationship. (It's Disney, what do you expect) I had a fun time watching 'Real Steel,' and I believe that families everywhere will love it, despite its fair PG-13 rating. I would even recommend my Orthodox Jewish relatives to take my young cousins to see this movie. There may be language and some fairly intense fighting between the robots and (in one scene) humans, but I guarantee that this is a movie not to miss. 'Real Steel' is the best family movie out there, and without a doubt the best robot action flick of the year.


Charlie Kenton may be the biggest douche in the world. Sorry for the language, but it's the truth. Not only has he become greedy and obsessed with robot boxing, but he also abandoned his only son, now 11, and his ex-girlfriend, who is now dead. Now Charlie's son Max has to stay with him for the summer before papers are signed to give custody to Max's aunt and uncle. During a night of looking for robot pieces after losing an expensive battle, Max finds Atom, a second generation robot (this movie takes place in the year 2020, so second generation is from 2014) that is smaller than most robots fighting currently, yet can take a huge load of hits. Max seems to be the only person who has faith in Atom, so he gets daddy to train the bot, becoming an instant success. Robot battles and father/son issues make 'Real Steel' possible.

Hugh Jackman can either be really good or really crappy. In this movie, he plays a jerky jerk that has eyes shaped like dollar signs and a heart smaller than even the Grinch's. Despite having the growing urge to hate this guy throughout the two hour flick, you come to care for him in a weird way, because of how he bonds with the kid Max. Jackman gives it all he's got in this and for that; he is quite a fun character to see. Plus his fighting skills used for Atom look quite awesome. The young kid playing Jackman's son Max is quite excellent in this movie. Max is played by newcomer Dakota Goyo, and he is not afraid to do or say anything throughout. This kid is smart, witty, and potty mouthed. No f-bombs, but PG-13 potty mouthed (s**t, a**, etc.) is the way he goes. This is the character who tugs at the audience’s heart strings, and he does it flawlessly. The chemistry between Jackman and Goyo is a sweet yet dramatic side to the movie, giving the film the Disney vibe that it needs to have in order to succeed with its audience.

The supporting cast includes 'Lost' star Evangeline Lilly and Anthony Mackie from 'The Adjustment Bureau.' Lilly is a good presence as the obvious love interest to Jackman's character. She may be a clichéd role in the film, but she has a good screen presence and I enjoyed her for that. As for Mackie, he was just awesome in this movie. The role might not be as good as his role in 'Adjustment Bureau,' but it seemed that he had a very fun time making this movie, and I know that I had a fun time watching him play this sweet character. Overall, Spielberg and director Shawn Levy made very wise decisions in casting the characters in this fun movie.

As many know, I am a fan of Shawn Levy. His previous work includes the 'Night at the Museum' series and the Steve Carell/Tina Fey comedy 'Date Night.' I'm glad Levy was able to direct this movie, because not only does it give him control over the storyline, it also gives him control of a better advertisement campaign. When Levy worked with 20th Century Fox in the past few years, the advertising to his movies never quite gave the actual plot of the film, just the very broad details of the movie. An example with this idea is 'Date Night,' believe it or not. What you may thought was a film about a married couple getting involved with criminals was actually about a struggling marriage taking the ride of their lives when they are accused of possessing a flash drive holding crazy pictures of the D.A. of New York. Watch the trailer and you'll know what I mean. Getting back to 'Real Steel,' I loved how Levy was in some ways given freedom in terms of creativity. The fight scenes are effective and awesome, as well as emotionally charged scenes between father and son. If Levy continues on this smart path, he may be considered to be one of Hollywood's best family/comedy directors.

The robots look incredibly cool in this movie, especially during the kick ass fight scenes. You might not have known that some shots of the robots were animatronics, with the rest being CGI. I loved the fact that they went down this path because it gives the film a bit of a 80s feel. The action scenes with the robot not only look cool, but feel very cool in the metaphorical sense. The audience at my Sunday evening show was really into the robot scenes and was even cheering at the end of some of the battles. The last time I remember an audience being so into a movie that they were cheering during it was when I saw 'The Help' a month in advance, and boy was that audience into the flick. Forget Optimus Prime ladies and gentlemen, these robots carry much more emotion than the alien robots, and these bots don't even talk! (Wall-E could talk, so forget about it!)

We, the people are in a generation where movies feature non-stop product placement. 'Real Steel' is one of the many movies this year where product placement is everywhere in sight. My sister, who went with me to the movie acknowledged this in a highly negative way, finding it stupid and unnecessary. Personally, I was just counting the names and laughing my ass off at the same time! There is one scene involving Max, Atom, and lots of dancing. During that scene, you have three cans of Dr. Pepper (great soda, BTW) just shining in your face, with each logo clearly facing the camera on purpose. This is just the least of the product placement, as during the final battle between Atom and Zeus you see numerous logos such as Sprint, Coca Cola, and Xbox 720. (Get the joke there?) If this movie had been nothing but product placements throughout the battles, I would have had a stupid but very fun time pointing out all of the ads. Some people will dislike this movie. If you end up being one of these people, then see the movie a second time and just laugh at all of the stupid ads the movie presents to its audience.

Fighting robots, a cheesy script, and a sweet father/son relationship make 'Real Steel' a very fun movie to watch. The acting is good, the fighting looks awesome, and your heartstrings will be pulled at least once. Your family won't have anything to see for about three weeks, ('Puss in Boots' and 'Johnny English Reborn' come out on the 28th of October) so you may want to take them to see this sleek flick, despite its PG-13 rating. Kids will enjoy the robot fighting and the presence of Max, and parents will not only enjoy the film, but they'll enjoy seeing their kids try to box after you walk out of the theater. My sister is a very tough nut to get in to, so it was nice to see her enjoy this movie disguised as a boy’s movie. Little girls out there, there were females aged 15 and younger in the show I went to, so I have a strong feeling that this really is a movie for EVERYONE. I also want to point out that this movie was released in the IMAX format, so if you have the choice between the two versions, I'd say go to IMAX because of the kick ass robots fighting on the huge screens, plus the added sound of the fights and the film's music. So if you're looking for a fun robot flick with humor, heart, and something for everyone, then do yourself a huge favor and see the wrath of 'Real Steel.’


 



PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Johnny English Reborn


Happy Feet Two


Arthur Christmas


We Bought A Zoo


War Horse


John Carter


The Muppets (AMC Theatres PSA)

REWIND REVIEW: Howl's Moving Castle

MOVIE
Howl's Moving Castle

CAST
Jean Simmons, Emily Mortimer

RATING
PG

RELEASE
June 10, 2005 (U.S.)

DIRECTOR
Hayao Miyazaki

STUDIO(S)
Walt Disney Studios,
Studio Ghibli

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 59 minutes






STARS
****









REVIEW:

It's official: Japan is the animation capital of the world!  What's even more crazy about me making this assumption is that this was my first Anime movie outside of the 'Pokemon,' 'Naruto,' and 'Yu-Gi-Oh' franchises.  I've always heard that Hayao Miyazaki was a fantastic director, being at the helm of such recent classics like 'Spirited Away' and 'Ponyo,' but I just never got around to watching one of his films.  October 7, 2011 was the start of Yom Kippur, which is 24 hours of fasting and redemption from Hashem (G-D) for the new year.  My father was at synagogue, my mom out with a friend, and my sister also hanging out with a friend.  Just looking for something to do, I look to see what was on Starz at around 6:00, and sure enough I found something.  'Howl's Moving Castle' was the movie I chose, and I'm sure as hell overwhelmed by my super wise choice.  With the American voice talents of Christan Bale, Jean Simmons, (R.I.P.) and Billy Crystal included in the package, 'Howl's Moving Castle' is a magnificent animated flick.  It might actually be one of the best animated movies that I've ever seen, believe it or not!  Let me just tell you now before you get all angry at me that I'm not a huge fan of 'The Wizard Of Oz,' though it is still a good family movie.  The reason why I mention 'Oz' in this review is because this movie is 'Oz' for teenagers, or anyone who loves fantastic cinema.  'Howl's Moving Castle' is a sublime animated tour-de-force that should be watched by everyone for many generations to come.

Sophie is an 18 year old girl hat maker who has just been cursed by a powerful witch known as The Witch of the Waste, turning her into a weak 90 year old women with no chance of surviving on her own.  Just by the fate of luck, Sophie meets Howl, another powerful magician with dark secrets on his shoulder and a convenient way of traveling around the world.  The transportation? A huge ass moving castle run by a kind demon named Calcifer, who knows more about Howl than anyone does.  With the aid of a young apprentice named Markl and a moving scarecrow only known as "Turnip Head,"  Sophie will travel throughout the world to reclaim what is rightfully hers, even if that means risking her life against demonic demons out to get every witch and wizard alive to fight in an unnecessary war going on at the same time.

We are in the era where almost every kids movie out there is either using CGI, adding the dimension with 3D, or combining both to make a cool looking kids movie.  The rare examples of kids/animated movies being released using hand drawn animation include this year's 'Winnie The Pooh' and 'The Lion King 3D,' which only worked because there was nothing else playing for kids during the beginning/middle of September.  The film uses hand drawn manga animation, and it looks absolutely spectacular the moment the first frame of the movie hits your TV.  Hand drawn animation is never supposed to look as real as a Kodak picture, but you'll find it hard to ignore how detailed some of the animation looks, including the moving castle and the shocking look of the wrinkly, 90 year old Sophie.  The vision of this world is nothing less than extraordinary, and I now believe that Miyazaki may have the most creative mind of any movie director in history.  That may be a bold statement coming from a 14 year old teen who enjoys many others such as Tim Burton and Steven Spielberg, but Miyazaki has ways with his movies that make them so creative and unique that they pull you in just by looking at a poster. 

The voice casting in this movie is quite incredible, despite not having the biggest names in Hollywood.  The most famous name out of the all star cast is Christan "Batman" Bale, who plays the wizard Howl.  I have never seen or even heard Bale be such a friendly soul before, especially after his rant on the "Terminator" set years ago.  In this movie he voices a character who is the combination of David Bowie in 'Labrynth' and a really really really nice wizard, like Dumbledore or Mickey Mouse.  You can also add "bad ass" to the combination because that is exactly what Howl is: a beautiful soul with the touch of a bad ass.  Another voice in this movie who can be highly praised is Billy Crystal as Calcifer, a talking flame of fire who controls Howl's Moving Castle.  Crystal at first is unrecognizable, but once he gets into his tantrums you know exactly who it is: MIKE WAZOWSKI!  The two leading men prove to be powerful additions to the movie, but what about the leading ladies?

Emily Mortimer and the late Jean Simmons portrayed the main character Sophie at two different stages in the twisted spell casted on by The Wicked Witch of the Waste.  Mortimer plays her when she's all young and at 18, being a pretty princess of sorts who doesn't want the life that her mother and sister have.  After the spell is casted on, Jean Simmons takes the vocals as the weak, old version of Sophie, who's desperately trying to survive.  I liked how in some scenes you see the transformation from one version to the other, and not only do you see the animation change, you also hear their voices change.  It's quite stunning when a team of professionals can pull this off, though it's much easier now than it was in 2004 when the film was originally released in Japan.  The voice talent itself is fantastic, Simmons providing for almost three quarters of the movie.  Basically all of the voice talent in this movie is superb, with no weak link to be found anywhere.  Sublime animation plus great voices equal an awesome animated spectacle of wonder and excitement.

In the years that I have been reviewing movies, this is by far the best animated movie out of them all.  Don't hate me for dissing Toy Story 3,' despite its awesomeness and tear jerking moments.  Rarely has a movie ever made me feel like a little kid eating a bunch of healthy sugary sweets at snack time during school.  This film is what I like to call 'The Wizard Of Oz' for every teenager of many generations to come.  The voices are fantastic, the animation is phenomenal, and the story is very creative and somewhat original.  The opening 20 minutes of the movie had my jaw hanging inches away from my carpet, because it felt as if my wildest dreams were stolen and projected onto my TV with the help of awesome anime and the "I'm not wearing hockey pants!" dude. (Epic Batman reference, hope you got it)  If you have Starz as part of your on demand selections and you have nothing to do at the moment or you are at your local library and they have this movie on the shelf, do yourself a favor and WATCH THIS MOVIE!  I am screaming at the top of my lungs to everyone I know (not really) that they must check this movie out.  Now I am telling you that if you're looking for a fantastic animated flick that's not exactly for kids, then start howling like a wolf and check out the awesomeness of 'Howl's Moving Castle.'

REVIEW: Restless

MOVIE
Restless

CAST
Henry Hopper,
Mia Wasikowska

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
September 16, 2011

DIRECTOR
Gus Van Sant

STUDIO
Sony Pictures Classics

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 31 minutes





STARS
***1/4







REVIEW:

Another day, another cancer movie.  I'm not saying that in any bad way, because this weekend gave us the fantastic '50/50,' a movie that I strongly recommend you to check out.  This film has been delayed for about eight months, with Sony wanting to screen this movie at Cannes back in May.  Anticipation for this film was fairly high, being directed by Gus Van Sant, of the award winning films 'Milk' and 'Good Will Hunting, as well as starring Australian favorite Mia Wasikowska from 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'The Kids Are All Right.'  Going into this movie, I had no idea what to expect.  Reception is mixed on this one, so it was kind of a mixed bag for this 91 minute drama.  With the added fact that I was the ONLY PERSON in the auditorium on a Sunday afternoon, my excitement for the movie dropped a bit.  Despite these worries and disappointments, I still had my eyes glued to the screen with my mind open like a book.  If there's any way to describe this film to a movie buff, I'd say that it's "The Art of Getting By with Cancer."  Don't worry, that's a good thing.  This movie wasn't like 'Art' because it was predictable, short, and unoriginal."  I give my comparison between the two because of the sweet, light hearted relationship between their two teen leads.  I doubt that this movie is going to get a lot of business, due to the lack of marketing and the mixed reception.  Howevder for what it is, 'Restless' is a real, touching, and sweet cancer/coming of age movie.  Any teen will find it hard to not compare to the chemistry between Hopper and Wasikowska.

Enoch Brae is a teenage guy with a huge dramatic past.  His parents were killed in a car accident, he was kicked out of school for unknown reasons, and most of all, he can talk to Hiroshi, the ghost of a Kamikaze fighter pilot.  Just for something to do, Enoch crashes the funerals of complete strangers from all over town, on the verge of getting into trouble with the law for it.  But alas a miracle comes Enoch's way, and her name is Annabel.  Annabel is a sweet, optimistic young lady who turns out to be a terminally ill cancer patient.  With only three months to live, (they say this in the trailer, so it's not a spoiler.)  Enoch and Annabel spend every waking minute making each day the best day of Annabel's life.  Fortunately, Enoch and Annabel's relationship blossoms into something more than everyday teen love.

The only experience that I have with Mia Wasikowska is the 2010 3D fantasy 'Alice in Wonderland,' where she was awesome and a badass at the same time.  I have yet to see 'Jane Eyre,' which I've heard from many is a very good adaptation.  In this movie, Wasikowska plays Annabel, the cancer patient with a very limited amount of time left on Earth.  Her performance is far from Oscar worthy, no doubt.  However with all of the trampy girls in movies these days, Wasikowska plays such a sweet and innocent role that it may just be the best thing about this movie.  When you see her just ignoring death and living life to its fullest, it just makes you feel so pure inside.  She really makes this movie, without a doubt.  It's kind of ironic that I make the 'Art Of Getting By' comparison, because Wasikowska, an Australian, and Freddie Highmore, an English man, were the best parts out of those two movies.  Gotta love the foreigners, don't we America?  As for the male lead Henry Hopper, he was okay during the first half of the movie.  The second half however really showed a dark and more fascinating side of his character, which all the more makes the character very relatable.  As I have read, this is Hopper's first acting job, so it's no surprise that he's on a rough start.  I see a future with this guy; and if he's able to work with the director of 'Milk,' then I wouldn't be surprised if more directors start to present him with more roles. 

With every decent movie out there there has to be flaws.  I found that almost every time Hopper and Wasikowska were speaking an having nice conversations, Wasikowska's character Annabel says something involving her quickly approaching demise.  I found it to be a very annoying flaw in the script, because I don't know many people who just talk with people and out of nowhere infer that they are quickly dying.  It's kind of like Heather Graham in the Austin Powers sequel, 'The Spy Who Shagged Me.' (In my opinion the funniest Austin Powers film, but that's not the point right now)  Every time Austin said something smooth, Graham's character Felicity Shagwell says some dopey catchphrase/ line saying something like "I'm better off my feet" or "You can have me if you wanna."  Do you seriously expect me to sit around enjoying a movie and let a dumb line like this just pass over my head?  It just felt really cheesy that they had to have Annabel reference her death in every other scene.  Sorry to bore you with that, how about another flaw?  Oh here's one: Hopper's acting.  The first half/two thirds of the movie had Hopper walking around, talking to this Japanese ghost looked sad and mopey all the time.  He wasn't as much a cardboard cutout as any porn teen in a slasher flick, but for a guy being the son of Dennis Hopper, there is more to yearn for in his role.  Still, there was that strong second half to boost his acting skills o an "average."  I don't want to bore you anymore with my complaints, so let's end this review up on a high note, okay?

'Restless' is as real as a movie can get.  Sure it's very fluffy and mushy, but the acting between the two leads, as well as their charming chemistry together made this a very enjoyable experience for me.  People are really bashing on this movie right now, and this hasn't even made $20,000 at the box office yet.  Is it because you go in expecting a tour-de-force like 'Good Will Hunting' and walk out disappointed that you didn't get what you ordered?  I'd guess so, but I can see why they're upset.  I've never seen any of Gus Van Sant's previous work, but I've heard those were excellent, which explains why two of them got Best Picture Oscar nominations.  I would be disappointed if George Lucas went back into the superb Star Wars franchise and made prequels to them showing Darth Vadar's back story.  Oh wait a minute...  It sucks when a director steps a notch down from his previous work, but can't you just see a movie for what it is rather than what the director has not made.  This is a sweet, light, real movie that touched my inner soul.  I wouldn't see this again in a theater.  However when it comes on Starz in about a year, you can count me in on that.  If you like a pure sweet heart filled with good acting and a tear jerking final act, stay up late tonight, because when this movie's done, you're going to feel light on you feet and 'Restless' until you hit your pillow immediately after putting on your P.J.'s.






PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Martha Marcy May Marlene


Pariah


Dirty Girl


Margin Call

SCHOOL REVIEW: Pay It Forward

MOVIE
Pay It Forward

CAST
Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt,
Haley Joel Osment

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
October 20, 2000

DIRECTOR
Mimi Leder

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 3 minutes



STARS
**1/4











REVIEW:

Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, and Haley Joel Osment: Three of the best actresses of the late 90s/early 21st century.  How could a movie about a life changing idea be bad?  Believe it or not, there are many reasons why the 2000 drama 'Pay it Forward' is a surprisingly disappointing film.  Imagine an idea where one person helps three people, then those three people each help three separate people, and so on and so forth.  Let me just point out that the first half hour of the movie is fantastic.  Kevin Spacey, who plays Haley Joel Osment's mysterious Social Studies teacher Mr. Simonet is captivating for about half of the film, before he turns into a moody, love crazy man who's falling for Helen Hunt, Haley Joel Osment's movie mommy.  If the movie had stuck on the same path as the film's first 30 minutes, then I might've given it a higher grade.  Overall, because of the unnecessary love plot, a confusing time frame, and one of the worst endings that I have ever seen, 'Pay It Forward' is not much of a good movie, and I found it really hard to fall into the gushy romance between Hunt and Spacey.

I'm surprised of myself that I have not reviewed many of the films that I have seen inn school over the years.  The only one that comes to mind is the Francis Ford Coppola film 'The Outsiders,' which I still loathe to this day.  That is the prime example of how a book is poorly executed on the big screen.  While this film isn't as bad as 'The Outsiders,' it is still a very disappointing and confusing movie that left me more mind numb than my first experience with 'Inception.'  The movie starts off with a scene involving a reporter and his car being destroyed.  After that, a "four months earlier" card pops up, bringing us to Osment and Spacey's first encounter in school.  Throughout the film we cut from the Osment/Spacey/Hunt storyline to the reporter storyline, believing that we are still "four months earlier."  It's not until about 15 minutes left in the film that we find out that we, the audience, have been jumping through a time stream so clogged, that we don't even know how long anyone has even known about the pay it forward idea.  I could tell that many classmates of mine were also confused by this aspect, so just know before watching the movie that you will be jumping throughout time until the disappointing final minutes of the film.

A lot of movies these days behold many clichéd romantic sub plots that are highly unnecessary for the film's main plot.  'Pay it Forward' is no exception to this "spectacular" rule.  In a movie that's supposed to be about a miraculous idea spreading among the world's citizens, we get a stupid romantic relationship between Helen Hunt's alcoholic persona and Kevin Spacey's straight yet dark teacher.  There is no way in the history of life that this relationship could EVER happen.  If there is a relationship between an alcoholic and a scarred teacher, then I apologize.  I'm just showing how surreal this romance is.  Sure, the actors did a fine job, Osment especially, but can't there ever be a movie just about one story rather than multiple stories all condensed into a two hour picture. 

In the year 2000, we were living in the generation of so many fantastic movies that everybody loved.  11 years later, where have we gone?  Is Hollywood just so dumb or afraid to make something new that all they can make are sequels, remakes, true stories, or stupid romantic comedies?  This is the prime example of how a fantastic premise can turn into a two hour drag fest.  The actors in this film are incredibly talented, so why did they end up making this forgettable film over a decade ago?  I don't know, but it seems that Osment will only be known as Cole in 'The Sixth Sense,' despite the strong performance he gives here.  I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone if they dislike romantic plots and confusing time streams.  I will, however recommend this first half hour of the film to anybody who's curious to see what this movie is like.  Everything after the moment alcohol Hunt asks scarred Spacey out on a date is a complete waste of time.  The absolute worst thing about the film is the ending, where let's just say that Osment's career comes back to haunt him, asking "why was I in this movie?"  Everything ends so moody, which is one of the many reasons why 'Pay it Forward' was the most disappointing film of 2000.  Even in 2011 I can acknowledge that, since there was barely anything hitting the theaters in 2000.  Happy Late Millennium!