REVIEW: Arthur Christmas 3D

MOVIE
Arthur Christmas

CAST
James McAvoy, Hugh Laurie

RATING
PG

RELEASE
November 23, 2011

DIRECTOR
Sarah Smith

STUDIO(S)
Columbia Pictures,
Aardman Animations,
Sony Pictures Animation

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 37 minutes




STARS
**1/2








REVIEW:

Leave it to Aardman, the creative geniuses behind 'Wallace and Gromit' and 'Chicken Run' to make an animated Christmas movie with lots of comedy and a beautiful heart. The latest entry into the Christmas movie foray is 'Arthur Christmas.' If you've ever wondered how Santa delivers all of the world's presents in one night, this film shows you that exact way, but it's more technologically advanced than you'd expect. We live in the 21st century, so of course Santa and his elves are in the now with a spaceship in replacement for a wooden sleigh, as well as elves delivering the presents 'Mission Impossible' style. This year however, Santa, his oldest son/heir to the throne Steve, and the elves have missed one child in delivering a present. This is where Santa's youngest son Arthur is the only one who cares. Being so devoted to giving every child the perfect Christmas, Arthur, along with Grand Santa, take an old sleigh and seven retired reindeer on a worldwide sleigh road trip in order to deliver this present before sunrise. So how is Aardman's latest entry into the Christmas genre overall? It's a good movie, that's all I can say.

I would like to start off by saying that the voices are good enough, though there were those disappointing ones. James McAvoy is great as the bumbling yet caring Arthur. He is the one character in this movie that actually has a solid heart. He is a good character, but he's not as good as Bill Nighy's Grand Santa, who is the funniest character of the whole film. One liners are keen in animated flicks, and Nighy delivers ALL of the best ones, despite them being in the first 40 minutes of the film. He was funny, and that's all that matters, right? Well sadly these are the only characters in the film that are interesting at all. This movie is filled with an all-star British cast, including Jim Broadbent, Hugh Laurie, and Imelda Saunton, who are all extremely talented. Unfortunately for these talented Brits, they are the worst part of this film. All of these characters (except for Saunton, who apparently is just there in this movie) are so incredibly selfish that it's almost sickening to watch. Even Bill Nighy is an asshole in this film. Those characters are barely developed at all, which really disappointed me because there was more to these characters than what was shown. Overall the characters were very disappointing, but McAvoy and Nighy at least bring something to their roles.

The first half hour of this movie are complete animated genius, showing us the action sequence of Santa's present operation, witty jokes in the opening, and lots of great jokes overall. Then the movie slows down for the rest of the film, goes incredibly soft, and starts to disappoint in a surprising fashion. Don't get me wrong, the film is good; I just wish that this movie could have delivered more laughs and still deliver on a soft amount of heart. I was checking my watch a couple of times, believe it or not. Everything might work out well in the end and everybody forms a smile on their face when the credits roll, but everything in between that just disappointed the guy who was hoping that this would be 2011's 'Fantastic Mr. Fox.' ('Fox' opened up on the same weekend two years ago and was also a stop motion, that's the comparison)

I do give the film credit for having fantastic animation and great 3D. Aardman has always been the master of stop motion animation ever since the original 'Wallace and Gromit' specials from either the 80s or the 90s, so it comes as no surprise that the characters in this movie look vibrant and cool. The animation overall is fantastic, absorbing us flabby humans into a world where elves are like the combination of 'James Bond' and 'Mission Impossible.' The 3D also adds the feel of watching a stop motion movie directly on its set in England. While the 3D is good in the film, it's not as good as other 3D movies like 'Puss in Boots' or 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.' I wouldn't say it's something you must see in 3D, because a 2D viewing would be just as effective. But if you can tolerate wearing the goofy glasses for two hours and paying three dollars extra per ticket, then I'd say check it out in the third dimension.

'Arthur Christmas' is a good animated movie, but in the end there is a lot to be desired for after. You may get some good laughs and great voice performances from James McAvoy and Bill Nighy, but the story is too heartfelt for my liking and there weren't enough jokes in the second half to keep me going. This may be my least favorite Aardman film out of everything that they made. I could blame the fact that I'm Jewish that I wasn't as compelled with this film as many others were, but then again I just analyze movies for what they are and put religion aside. This is the best holiday movie in theaters currently, because for once studios aren't so obsessed with Christmas movies being released during the holidays. However for great Christmas awesomeness, I'd say rent something like 'Home Alone,' 'It's A Wonderful Life,' or 'A Christmas Story,' because there is nothing as great as the original Christmas classics. This film is harmless, and it will give you laughs, but 'Arthur Christmas' isn't the film that we'd want to see from Aardman.





PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Beauty and the Beast 3D


Journey 2: The Mysterious Island


The Pirates: Band of Misfits


The Adventures of Tintin


The Lorax

REVIEW: The Artist

MOVIE
The Artist

CAST
Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 25, 2011

DIRECTOR
Michel Hazanavicius

STUDIO
The Weinstein Company

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 40 minutes




STARS
****





NOTE: I ORIGINALLY SAW THIS AT THE PHILADELPHIA FILM FESTIVAL AND THIS WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED ON OCTOBER 29, 2011

REVIEW:

Many moviegoers in this day in age probably haven't seen an actual silent movie, excluding the Mel Brooks film ironically titled 'Silent Movie.' People might not even know what silent movies are anymore, other than people who lived in the 30s through the 70s. However that didn't stop French director Michel Hazanavicius from making 'The Artist.' 'The Artist' revolves around a silent movie actor who goes from top of the universe to bottom of the pits as the world goes through the era of movies with sound and the 1929 Stock Market Crash. This film has generated a lot of buzz ever since its debut at this year's Cannes Film Festival, where lead actor Jean Dujardin won the award for Best Actor, and his dog sidekick Uggy won the "Palm Dog Award," the award for the best pet featured in a movie playing at the festival. American audiences probably wouldn't know who the lead French actors are, so that's why American talent such as John Goodman and James Cromwell are along for this magical ride.

This movie can strongly be compared to the classic Gene Kelly musical ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ because of its subject matter and the charismatic actor taking the lead. If you enjoyed 'Singin in the Rain' (how could you not?) or are just a plain movie lover in general, you will love 'The Artist.' The only difference between the two films, aside from the six decade span between the two films’ releases, is that this movie is more emotional and shocking at some points. Think of it this way: if the second half of ‘Singin in the Rain’ had Don Lockwood falling into a deep and heartfelt depression and Cathy Seldom being a talkie success, you have ‘The Artist.’ Nevertheless, this movie is still spectacular. This may be a bit of a push, but I'll take my chances: 'The Artist' is more than just one of 2011's best films; it may just be the 'Singin in the Rain' of this generation!


French actor Jean Dujardin won Best Actor at Cannes this past summer, and he unquestionably deserves all of the awards buzz he will be getting soon. Dujardin knows how to ramp up the comedy when needed and he knows how to bring the emotion in the drama section of the film. There is a sense of a young Gene Kelly shown throughout the film, from his looks to the way he acts out to everything, even getting an awesome tap dance thrown in at parts. If his performance isn't even considered for an Academy Award nomination, I will be very shocked. Another great performance in the movie doesn’t even come from a human. Believe it or not, if animals could as well be nominated for Best Supporting Actor a the Academy Awards, then the dog in this movie, Uggy, should be nominated, with a strong chance of even winning!

This dog makes its presence clear and centered the moment we are introduced to him at the beginning of the movie, doing some of the most amazing dog tricks ever put on screen. Uggy the dog, as amazing as this sounds, may absolutely me the single best character in 'The Artist,' and it's ironic because a dog, who cannot talk like you and me, is the best character in a silent movie! Uggy the dog to Dujardin's George Valentin is what Donald O'Conner's Cosmo Brown was to Gene Kelly's Don Lockwood. They are the best match of anybody or anything in any movie to come out this year. The rest of the cast was phenomenal, ranging from Bérénice Bejo as Peppy Miller to John Goodman as Al Zimmer. It's amazing how fantastic these actors are with their physical actions and expressions, and they're not even bloody talking! That is something to be proud of.

What's so special about this movie is, not just that it was shot in black and white and is silent, but director Michel Hazanavicius was so certain on his vision that the movie was shot and released in a 4:3 ratio, aka Full Screen! Before the 1960s, movie were usually shot on a full frame camera, and movie theaters had these screens rather than the wide screens we all have come to know. It may not be a technical breakthrough or anything like that, but just seeing this film this way will make you feel like a moviegoer in the 1920s when sound was created from an orchestra in a movie theater. A title card, which means that cards that contain lines from a film's script pop up on the screen, only add to the feel of really watching a silent movie from the 20s. Movies have really evolved over the past century, but it is still cool to see movies made in a way that feels old and strange, yet something that is made out of magic.

Director Michel Hazanavicius has crafted a gem of a movie that should be watched for generations to come. This is the movie for fans of silent film actors like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, and also the movie for fans of film to check out. The performances are sublime, the film looks authentic and old, and it really captures the feel of what a movie should be like. You will laugh and you will just stare in awe throughout the 100 minutes this film lasts. You may just be hearing score for 95% of the film, (there is talking during two scenes) but the music tells a sweet and sometimes shocking story that keeps you involved throughout. The movie may be slow during one or two scenes, but everything else keeps you emotionally involved and entertained for the time it lasts. For any cinephile in the world who for some reason has been disappointed with recent movie releases, this is definitely THE movie to check out this fall. This isn't officially coming out until November 25, but 'The Artist' is absolutely worth your time and your money and should be one of the biggest hits of the fall. For the die-hard movie lovers or "artists" in all of us, check out 'The Artist,' and you will have one hell of an awesome experience. Au revoir!








 

REVIEW: My Week With Marilyn

MOVIE
My Week With Marilyn

CAST
Michelle Williams,
Eddie Redmayne

RATING
R

RELEASE
November 23, 2011

DIRECTOR
Simon Curtis

STUDIO
The Weinstein Company

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 41 minutes






STARS
***3/4




NOTE: I ORIGINALLY SAW THIS AT THE PHILADELPHIA FILM FESTIVAL AND THIS REVIEW WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON NOVEMBER 4, 2011


REVIEW:

One of Hollywood's most exciting moments was when Marilyn Monroe was flying to England in order to film Laurence Oliver's production of 'The Prince and the Showgirl.' In the 90s, a man named Colin Clark released two memoirs depicting his time on the set of the film and the relationship between himself and Monroe, which happened to have lasted one week. Even before any footage was shown to the general public, the hype for this movie was fairly large, solely for Williams’ performance as Monroe. Nothing is groundbreaking in 'My Week With Marilyn,' but it may be the sweetest movie to be put out by The Weinstein Company this year. Audiences will laugh, and they'll just stare in awe as William gives a sublime performance of the iconic sex symbol. You also get great performances from 'Thor' director Kenneth Branagh, well known British actor Eddie Redmayne, and Dominic Cooper who is good in almost anything. I wouldn't exactly call 'My Week With Marilyn' a love letter to Hollywood, but the film's charm and heart make it one of the more enjoyable movies of the year. 'My Week With Marilyn' takes the heart and drama of 'The King's Speech' and molds it down into a 50s Hollywood version with the focus being on Marilyn Monroe. Nevertheless, this movie is sweet fun with some true heart and wicked performances from all.


How can you get into a review of this film and not mention Michelle Williams’ performance at all? Williams is hot off the heels of her Oscar nomination for her role in last year's 'Blue Valentine,' which I cannot see so yours truly can't make a comparison. However even though Natalie Portman killed her last year for the gold, this year should be the year of Williams. From personal experience, I have not seen 'The Prince and the Showgirl,' but I have seen 'Some Like It Hot,' so at least there is some experience had from a Monroe performance. The film's portrayal of Monroe is quite different than it would be shown in one of her films, but in terms of being accurate on emotion and humor, Williams is spot on. It's going to be very challenging to top a performance quite as captivating and moving as Williams' Monroe.

The film's supporting cast is also quite good, with Kenneth Branagh being the standout among them all. Branagh plays Sir Laurence Oliver, known in this film as the star and director of 'The Prince and the Showgirl.' He, like all of the men in this movie, has the hots for Monroe, and to see him play off of that both "on and off screen" showed how much an actor can really go. This actually isn't too surprising, considering Branagh's background of Shakespeare plays. Another great performance is the guy whose character starts the whole story: Eddie Redmayne. We Americans don't know anything about this guy, unless you either have seen him in some British movies or saw his male modeling side. However from what can be seen in this film, Redmayne has some serious acting chops. Despite being a flawed character at some parts, Redmayne shows some star potential and maybe some award success in the coming future. The rest of the supporting cast, including Dominic Cooper, Emma Watson, and Dame Judi Dench are all fantastic in this movie. Overall, everyone does a sublime job in this movie, with Williams especially deserving an Oscar nomination.

With a quirky and charming script, a modest running time, and a sublime performance from Michelle Williams, 'My Week With Marilyn' is a fun and sweet film that deserves to be seen by anyone who loves the movies and/or Ms. Monroe. While there are some minor flaws in the film, there is really nothing to hate about this movie. There's nothing confusing or sophisticated about this film like many of the Oscar movies that will be or already have come out this year; it's just a simple yet sweet movie that will captivate audiences who actually go and check it out. The cast is fantastic, and the story is grabbing, which should be what people want in their films. Oscar season is going to be very interesting this year, because many sublime movies have come out already, with many more coming in the next two months. 'My Week With Marilyn' is one of the many great movies to be coming out this year, which is all the more reason to go see this movie as soon as it starts playing near you. Plus if you for some reason hate this movie, there's always the Monroe classics like 'The Prince and the Showgirl' and 'Some Like It Hot' to help you feel better about yourself.

REVIEW: The Muppets

MOVIE
The Muppets

CAST
Jason Segel, Amy Adams,
Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy

RATING
PG

RELEASE
November 23, 2011

DIRECTOR
James Bobin

STUDIO
Walt DIsney Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 43 minutes





STARS
***3/4









REVIEW:

After twelve years of absence from the big screen, Jason Segel, his 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' director/screenwriter Nick Stoller, and director James Bobin have finally brought back The Muppets in spectacular fashion. Ever since Disney started up an amazing marketing campaign back in late May, audiences have been eagerly waiting to see what Disney and Segel exactly had in mind. Luckily for them, they created a spectacular kids movie with lots of hilarious jokes, elaborate and catchy musical numbers, and a perfect reason why 'The Muppets' are something for every generation to see. I honestly haven't felt so enthralled in a kid’s movie since 'Toy Story 3' last year. This is the perfect film to take your kids to during the holidays, or just to take yourself. (Oh yeah, it's THAT kind of movie!) I don't think that I have laughed harder at any other movie that came out this year. Not only is 'The Muppets' possibly the best thing out there right now, (I still haven't seen 'Hugo' or 'Arthur Christmas' at the time of this posting.) but it also one of the true joyus celebrations of 2011. There is no greater fun than watching puppets playing off the fact that they are in a movie.

Jason Segel and Amy Adams play Gary and Mary, a dating couple who live in the town of, well, Smalltown. Smalltown is basically a playoff of a Disney set combined with a 50s era tone, which is always awesome. Gary has an adopted brother named Walter, who ever since he was a child felt that it is his destiny to be on TV with The Muppets. Gary and Mary decide to take a trip to Los Angeles, with the surprise being that they're taking Walter along so he can go to Muppets Studio. However when they get there things take a turn for a worst for the crew as it turns out that Muppets Studio is going to be destroyed by an oil tycoon named Tex Richman who want to get the oil that's under the studio. Walter being the big fan and all decides to try to get Kermit, Miss Piggy, and the rest of the team in order to make $10 million before Richman destroys the studio forever.

Jason Segel and Nick Stoller have written a fantastic and witty script that both pays homage to the original show and plays off today's advances in technology. Plus Segel putting himself as the head human star of the film also added an advantage to it because Segel in some ways is a human Muppet. I loved seeing his chemistry between his "brother" Walter in the film, as well as his chemistry with all of The Muppets. The purpose of humans being in Muppet movies is so they can interact with these creatures as if they were regular people like you and me. Amy Adams was good, but I sort of don't get why she needed to be in this film. She sang this ridiculous song with Miss Piggy called "Me Party" that added nothing to the story.  Despite the flaw of Adams' character, the cast in this film is pitch perfect.  As for the "muppeteers," they were all fantastic playing the roles once conceived by Jim Henson. (R.I.P.) Sure they don't sound entirely like the original voices, but the spirit is still there and they make believable Muppets. Plus the renditions of classic 'Muppets' music all sounded like the original versions, which is always an awesome sign.

I don't think that this was shown a lot in the commercials, but this film is actually a musical. Every song in this film, even if it's supposed to be a dramatic song, still keeps a smile on your face because almost every song features a celebrity cameo, which I will not give away at all! They are catchy as hell, and really move the story along in comedic fashion. These are the type of musical songs that are worthy of buying for your iPod, because, while not as memorable as "The Rainbow Connection" or "Munamanah," (both are in the film, by the way!) they are still fun to listen to and will always make you feel warm inside. When was the last time a soundtrack did that to you?

The best type of movie is when it breaks the fourth wall and makes fun of itself. From traveling by map to saying lines like "I can't believe we had that in the budget," some of the film's best jokes come from breaking the fourth wall a countless number of times. Of course little kids wouldn't catch onto these jokes, but all of the adults and teens at my screening were bawling their eyes out in laughter because of the jokes in this film. They even pull the fourth wall jokes off in the musical numbers, which to me was great cinematic joy. It's not just the fourth wall breaking that makes this film funny, everything in this movie is simply heartfelt and hysterical, sometimes at the same time. Parents who go see this film I guarantee will be crying on the floor while watching this film; that is if you understand all of the jokes, have seen the original show/movies, and know ALL of the celebrity cameos.

'The Muppets' is the purest of examples that show why going to the movies with your family is a gimmick these days. Studios depend on 3D and crappy characters to sell tickets, when what they really should be doing is finding the right character(s) to bring to the big screen. 'The Muppets' may just be pieces of fabric with hands up their butts, but the essence of reality that we get out of them bring joy to the youngest of kids, and better yet the kid in all of us. Disney and Segel were smart to release this movie with no special gimmick added to the title, because this is the type of movie that needs no gimmick. 'Winnie the Pooh,' another Disney release, also proves that you don't need a gimmick to sell a great (or sometimes crappy) movie. Families, I beg you to take all of your youngest relatives to see this movie over the holidays. Not only will they be introduced to 'The Muppets' for the first time, but you will feel like you're a young kid again watching Kermit and the gang back on the big screen. As the opening of the original 'The Muppet Show's' theme song says, "It's Time to Play the Music. It's Time to Light the Lights. It's Time to Meet The Muppets!" This time adults, let's meet 'The Muppets' once again, and introduce the new generation to these loveable characters. Wocka Wocka Wocka!


(New short, 'Toy Story Toons: Small Fry' in front of ALL 'Muppets' prints!  It is insanely funny!)

REVIEW: Happy Feet Two 3D

MOVIE
Happy Feet Two

CAST
Elijah Wood, Robin Williams

RATING
PG

RELEASE
November 18, 2011

DIRECTOR
George Miller

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 39 minutes





STARS
***1/2








REVIEW:

Those dancing penguins are back after their triumphant Best Animated Feature win at the 2007 Oscars.  While the original 'Happy Feet' certainly wasn't the best animated film of 2006, it was still a very well done film with humor, music, and heart.  Five years later, a sequel has been made almost out of the blue, and Warner Bros. expects a huge profit from this film, despite opening up against 'Twilight.'  So how is this sequel you may ask?  Suprisingly enough, it's very good.  From early reviews I was expecting a trainwreck of a kid's film.  However, just like 'Cars 2' from June of this year, this film really surprised me of how much they really did to stay true to the original film.  Kids will love this movie as much as they loved any other kids movie that came out this year, but some parents may not tolerate it.  However some parents may get a kick out of the shere kiddiness and corniness of this film.  If you are one of those parents, then 'Happy Feet Two' is one of November's most delightful treats.

Mumble, the penguin from the first film, now has a little kid named Erik.  Erik is trying to find his place in Emporer Land because he has trouble dancing with his father and the rest of the nation.  After running away with two of his buddies and Mumble's friend Ramon, he meets Sven, a penguin who can fly.  Mumble comes after them and takes them home with Erik now wanting to be a "flying penguin."  However when the penguins get back to Emporer Land, they soon discover that the entire population has been trapped by several ice mountains due to global warming. (Isn't it always?) Now Erik comes up with the idea that Sven and his crew of penguins can help give the Emporer Penguins fish and attempt to free them from starvation.  At the same time in a sub plot, Will and Bill the Krill escape from their group of thousands because Bill (or Will, I can't remember) wants to climb the foodchain and become something that's more than just a vulnerable little krill.

The voice cast was good, but some of the characters either made no sense for the film and/or could have been voiced by anybody.  Elijah Wood has a strong voice with Mumble, despite no singing talents at all. (in the movie, I'm not referring to reality) I like him in these films, and I liked the father figure that he showed when talking to the adorable Erik, who's voiced by a young girl named Ava Acres. Speaking of Acres, her singing voice is so damn beautiful in this film, especially in one particular duet with the replacement for the late Brittany Murphy, pop idol P!nk.  She is adorable as Erik, and her singing voice, while not masculine at all, really sends chills down your spine.  P!nk surprisingly enough was a smart replacement for Murphy, because her voice and her singing really improve on the film's quality and puts a whole new layer onto the music that you'd never see coming.  Robin Williams as always is brilliantly funny in the two roles he plays in the film, Ramon and Lovelace.  I especailly love Ramon because of his latino accent and his hilarious one liners.  Enough with the original characters, why don't we get onto the new characters?

Brad Pitt and Matt Damon wanted to make a movie for their kids, so they chose this film.  My question in fact is WHY they are even in this movie to begin with.  Sure the characters are funny, but their sub plot didn't really make sense in the storyline at all.  The only time they interact with the penguins is when they are just caught up in the chaos of the penguins lives.  They don't even talk to Mumble or Erik at all!  They weren't bad characters, because I'd like to see their own spin off film like 'Puss in Boots.'  I just wonder why the screenwriters put so much time inot this "elaborate" storyline.  The other newbies that people would known are Sofia Vergara and Common as other penguins in the film.  They are talented actors, but again WHY were they in this movie?  They didn't add anything to this film at all for crying out loud!  They were just there so they could get a nice paycheck.  Why did they add new cast members to this movie?  Honestly, I have no idea at all. (Except for P!nk, she made some sense.)

Almost every animated movie to come out, whether it's good or not, has come out in 3D ever since early 2009.  The 3D in this film in short is quite spectacular.  I loved that the colors vibrated off the screen and danced on your glasses while you just stared in amazement.  Some of the exterior shots of Earth and the shots with the thousands of tiny krill looked breathtaking in the third dimension.  People may not like the movie a whole lot, but they will not deny that the 3D alone is something to talk about, as is the soundtrack of the film.  Sure the soundtrack is kind of like an animated penguin version of 'Glee,' but the voices in this film really send chills down your spine.  I can say that from experience when the final number, "Under Pressure," was sung by the entire cast.  If this movie can be complimented for anything, it can be for it's amazing 3D and catchy soundtrack, which also includes "Dragnosta De Ti," also known as "Numa Numa."

This is not the best animated film of the year by any means.  The real question is if it's a fun time, which I happily answer "YES!"  This film isn't for all ages, like a lot of other animated films were this year.  Kids will definitely enjoy it, and parents may just enjoy seeing their kids falling in love with it, and why wouldn't they?  There's catchy music, spectacular 3D, and some witty dialogue.  Can we ask for much more?  I doubt many will check this film out because of the whole Thanksgiving craze coming up this week, so I'd say that this would be a good rental.  However if you get the chance to, check this movie out in 3D.  Even if you don't enjoy it, why take away from your kids' fun time?  'Happy Feet Two' is a cute and charming film, and that's all it really wants to be.






PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:


Joyful Noise


Mirror Mirror


The Adventures of Tintin


Journey 2: The Mysterious Island


The Lorax


 The Pirates: Band of Misfits

REVIEW: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

MOVIE
The Twilight Saga:
Breaking Dawn Part 1

CAST
Kristen Stewart,
Robert Pattinson

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 18, 2011

DIRECTOR
Bill Condon

STUDIO
Summit Entertainment

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 57 minutes



STARS
***1/4









REVIEW:

In case you have only recently checked out my site, I want you to know that I'm an admirer, not a fan, of 'The Twilight Saga.' I don't know what it is about these films, but I kind of buy into the crappy script, the horrendous acting, and clichéd tri-mance between Bella, Edward, and Jacob. Sure they may be stupid, but in some ways they're enjoyable for me. Now comes the second to last film in the franchise, 'Breaking Dawn: Part 1.' In case you have been living in a cave for about five years, then you should know that Edward and Bella are finally getting married, and Jacob of course is pissed off about it. What does he do about it? Oh yeah that's right: he takes his freaking shirt off and becomes a wolf dog once again. Getting back to the marriage/honeymoon, Bella is finally deflowered by Edward (twice actually, because even girls have hormones up the yin-yang) and finds out two weeks later that she has a mutant vampire/human baby growing within her and eating her from the inside. Will Bella survive, and will she finally be turned into a vampire?

Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner are probably going to be great actors someday, Pattinson already aiming to get out of the Edward Cullen persona. Pattinson is the best of the three in the film, but it really isn't saying much. Stewart and Lautner are fine for what they are, but they really can't get any better with the source material that they're reading from. For most of the movie they just look out into the distance with one of their usual faces on, screaming some crap or what not. They aren't bad actors at all, but they aren't masters at their craft yet. The cheesiness of their acting, along with everyone else in the film, (Michael Sheen is in a post credits scene to tease 'Part 2') only adds to the enjoyment of this movie for me. The actors may not be the best of the best, but their cheese is only part of the fun with this film.

The latest director to enter this huge saga is Academy Award winner Bill Condon. Condon is probably known by many as the director behind the 2006 musical 'Dreamgirls.' Reading his resume, Condon has a strong track record on his back. My question to him is why did he do this movie? I might have liked this film, but Condon metaphorically didn't direct this movie. This is basically on the same exact trail as every other 'Twilight' film has been on for the past three years. Condon doesn't add any of his own flare to the film, yet he was never supposed to. They could have hired Catherine Hardwicke again to direct this one. Then again, Hardwicke tried out her own "creative ability" with 'Red Riding Hood,' and that looked like trash. Overall, while Condon might have directed this film, there is absolutely nothing of his style that was added to this vampire melodrama.

Is 'Breaking Dawn: Part 1' for everybody? Hell no! But if you enjoy and/or respect the franchise for what it is, then there are no problems to be had with this movie. The cast is fine for what they are, but the script is pretty laughable at parts. The sex was limited though, but the gore was on the up side, which left me cringing and enjoying all at the same time. (The gory birth scene where Edward has to break into Bella's embryonic sack = awesomeness.)  The Twi-Hard's are going to defend this movie for the rest of their lives, but the rest of the world's population will constantly rant about this series for about the next few years until 'Twilight' is out of everyones minds. It's going to make a s**t load of cash this weekend, so why not just go and enjoy it for what it is: pure stupidity with sex and gore added to the equation. I enjoyed the film for what it is, and I understand exactly why everyone else wouldn't. If you're a Twi-Hard, then this is your 'Citizen Kane.' If you're not, then don't even waste your time and money. Don't worry Twi-Haters, the series will be done with in a year and it will be out of your minds forever.





PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Sherlock Holmes:
A Game Of Shadows


We Bought A Zoo


Snow White & The Huntsman


Man on a Ledge


The Woman in Black


The Hunger Games

REWIND REVIEW: The Tree of Life

MOVIE
The Tree of Life

CAST
Brad Pitt, Sean Penn,
Jessica Chastain

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
May 27, 2011

DIRECTOR
Terrence Malick

STUDIO
Fox Searchlight Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 19 minutes





STARS
****








REVIEW:

Not everyone will fully understand Terrence Malick's 'The Tree of Life,' which has been in the mankind for decades now. Despite winning the Palme d'Or, the top award at the Cannes Film Festival this past summer, audiences never fully embraced the movie, thus it was gone from the public eye faster than a Ferrari drives off into the sunset. Now it's on DVD and Blu-Ray, so I finally was able to experience what many were calling 2011's best film. While 'The Tree of Life' is sometimes hard to understand and it really feels slow after about an hour or so, it makes up for sublime acting, the most beautiful sceneries/visual effects I've ever seen, and a remarkable path that takes you into the mind of a middle aged man suffering from a traumatized past in the 1950s. 'The Tree of Life' is a unique experience for all, but it can be very hard to follow and it may make your head hurt. If you can watch these types of films without a problem, then 'The Tree of Life' should be on your must see list because it is absolutely mesmerizing and incredible to look at.

This film enjoys cutting from the 50s to the present back to the beginning of time with a lot of whispering voice overs throughout. It's hard to describe the plot of the film because of its mixed editing, but the main focus of the film is Jack, the oldest of three children who absolutely hates his father, a strict and over powering man, and loves his mom, a free spirited and fun woman, with all of his heart. You don't get this plot line until about 45 minutes into the film, but that's because of quick shots of Sean Penn and older versions of Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain, as well as a 20 minute long sequence depicting the creation of the universe, Earth, and life on Earth. The film is very slow at times, but it still is something very interesting to watch. I myself was dozing off while watching this, but the film is still mesmerizing nevertheless. The best thing about this movie I must say is the cinematography and the visual effects.

The visual effects in 'The Tree of Life' are some of the greatest special effects that I have ever seen in a movie. During the 20 minute creation of the universe, you see planets colliding, colors clashing together, and galaxies building together in order to create the world that we currently live in. If the visuals and/or the cinematography don't get nominated for any Oscars at all, I may have the urge to sue them for acknowledging high quality mainstream films rather than this treat for the eye. Throughout that 20 minute scene, your eyes will not be able to stop looking at the visual spectacles presented on the screen, and your ears will be in a trance as the heavenly Church music plays during the evolution. So to sum this paragraph up, ‘The Tree of Life's' visuals are absolutely astounding, and the cinematography makes you feel like you're in a movie theater, even if you're at home watching this film on a laptop.

The acting in this movie, like I said previously, is absolutely incredible. Brad Pitt is great as the strict father, showing how aggressive he can get to his wife and kids in several parts of the film. I personally think that Pitt's performance in this film was much more interesting than his portrayal of Billy Beane in September's 'Moneyball.' Sean Penn is in this film for about 5 minutes, which is kind of disappointing because of how fantastic of an actor he is. He barely sheds any words throughout, which only adds to the complexity of this movie. While the lead males were good in this film, Jessica Chastain really steals the show as the angel of a mother treating her kids like real kids rather than prisoners in a cell. The kids in this movie, particularly the one who plays young Sean Penn are quite fantastic as well. They aren't significant in the film, mainly because there's barely any dialogue in the film throughout, but the performances from all are quite great.

Let's face it not everyone will fully understand 'The Tree of Life' whether you watch it once or ten times. Heck, I'm still trying to understand everything that went on in this film. However from what I got from the film, this is a marvelous experience into the human mind and soul, as well as a whole lot of crazy things going on in the universe. Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain give award worthy performances, and the visuals plus the cinematography will take your breath away. You will never shed a single smile in this movie once, but you don't need to because the depressed feeling the movie gives off only adds to the experience. If you can sustain 139 minutes of depressing subjects, slow pacing, confusing editing, topped with great acting and amazing visuals, then you should see 'The Tree of Life.' This movie has been in the making for over two decades, and Terrence Malick delivers exactly what the human mind has only dreamed of. 'The Tree of Life' will probably not end up on my top 10 for 2011, but it is still one of 2011's best movies. Check it out if your mind can sustain it.

REVIEW: Jack and Jill

MOVIE
Jack and Jill

CAST
Adam Sandler times Two

RATING
PG

RELEASE
November 11, 2011

DIRECTOR
Dennis Dugan

STUDIO(S)
Columbia Pictures,
Happy Madison Productions

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 31 minutes




STARS
*










REVIEW:

Why Adam Sandler; Why did you have to make this movie? As many who read this site might know, I'm a fan of Adam Sandler, despite making some of the stupidest movies out there. Just when we think that he couldn't sink any lower, we get his latest "masterpiece," 'Jack and Jill.' If 'Mrs. Doubtfire,' the crap that kids get these days, and Adam Sandler's awful crew were combined with one another, we get this movie. 'Jack and Jill' stars Sandler as Jack Sadelstein, a successful TV commercial guy who has a loving wife and two (one's adopted, what do you expect) children. But what he also has yet he's not very proud of is his twin sister Jill, who basically looks like Adam Sandler, Bette Midler, and Robin Williams combined into one. Oh wait it gets better: because Jill is lonely after her mom has passed away, she won't leave Jack's house. And then there's Al Pacino, who apparently has the hots for Jill, which is to the advantage of Jack because he needs Pacino to be in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial. Clever plot, right? Well that's just one of the many "hilarious" and "original" aspects of this movie, because Adam Sandler's latest flick is a certified dud.

I'm usually the one who enjoys these types of white trash flicks, but there were only one or two parts that actually kind of funny. Both of Sandler's characters are annoying as hell, and Katie Holmes is barely used. And just like the plot said, Al Pacino is in this movie playing, get this, himself! While he is the film's best character, he is relatively not funny at all, except in the final 5 minutes of the film. Why couldn't the movie be like its final 5 minutes? Oh that's right, so Adam Sandler's untalented friends could be in it. I get it Sandler; you're a very nice guy. However that doesn't stop it from them making your films trashier than they already are. Stop working with Dennis Dugan already, and make a comedy that everybody will love. Plus this film is supposed to be a family flick, hence the PG rating, but there is really nothing family oriented at all other than the family concept of the movie. There are so many racist and Anti-Semitic jokes in this flick that I just got annoyed after the second or third. Add that with a bunch of fart, poop, pee, and injury jokes and you get one hell of a bad movie.

This film currently has only one positive review and a 2% score on Rotten Tomatoes as of this posting, so that should explain something. If that doesn't explain anything, check out the parody poster of this movie that explains exactly what Sandler has been doing to us ever since 'Big Daddy' came out. Adam Sandler without a doubt is a very funny man, but this film is utter trash that only the diehard fans of Sandler or the brainless audiences will enjoy. Not even the youngest of children should be exposed to this piece of crap, because they may become even dumber than they already are. Believe me, I tried to enjoy this movie with all of my heart, but the 91 minutes and $5 spent for this flick I will never get back. 'Jack and Jill' isn't just the worst comedy of the year or the worst attempt at a family movie all year, but it is undoubtedly the single worst movie of 2011. Just do yourself a favor and see 'Puss in Boots' or rent 'Winnie the Pooh.'  At least then you can enjoy yourself rather than cringe when Jill gets herself stuck in a Mexican food aftermath joke.





PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Arthur Christmas


The Muppets


We Bought A Zoo


The Lorax


A Thousand Words


The Pirates: Band of Misfits

REVIEW: J. Edgar

MOVIE
J. Edgar

CAST
Leonardo Dicaprio,
Armie Hammer

RATING
R

RELEASE
November 9, 2011 (LIMITED)
November 11, 2011 (WIDE)

DIRECTOR
Clint Eastwood

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 17 minutes





STARS
***










REVIEW:

Looks like Leo has switched sides in terms of the FBI with his new film 'J. Edgar,' the biopic of controversial FBI director J. Edgar Hoover directed by Clint Eastwood. The film kept switching time periods from the 1920's/1930's when Hoover was at the top of his game and possibly had a secret affair with a Mr. Clyde Tolson, and the 1970's when Hoover is writing his autobiography. Even before a trailer was released a month and a half ago, buzz for this movie has been incredibly strong with the thought on everyone's mind that this was surefire Oscar bait. While the film is well acted and is intriguing throughout, 'J. Edgar' suffers from poor editing, awful makeup work when the three leads Leonardo, Armie, and Naomi Watts are shown in their old stages, and being just a disappointing film overall. Still though, Leonardo is a surefire Oscar nominee, Eastwood has a strong resume, and many audiences will love it. While it may not be Best Picture material at the Oscars, 'J. Edgar' is a good enough movie for me to recommend, just don't go in expecting a lot, and expect your butt numb and exhausted by the time the film ends.

The movie is supposed to look and feel like an old school crime movie, though it only succeeds at looking that way. I think Eastwood purposely shot the movie to have the look of a black and white movie, because there is barely any color in this film at all outside of the skin. I may be one of the few who thought that Eastwood's 'Invictus' was one of 2009's best movies, which shocks me because Eastwood is the same guy who has directed such Oscar winning films as 'Million Dollar Baby.' However, this is also coming from the guy who never got to see 'Hereafter,' which was panned by many. I respect Eastwood as a skilled director and hope that one day soon he will get his legendary touch back, hopefully very soon.

One of the good features of the movie was the acting. Everyone plays their part well, which is expected from this type of film. DiCaprio shines as J. Edgar, with his performance witty, narcissistic, and powerful. Throughout the film you see him both heavily devoted to his line of work and struggling with his sexuality. The chemistry Hoover has with all of the characters, including Mr. Tolson and his mother are all the best scenes in this movie. Definitely look out for some heavy Oscar buzz for DiCaprio, but don't expect him to win the gold this year, because he wasn't excellent; he was just good, mainly because his voice and personality never change in the 50 year jumps when Hoover's old and when he's young. Another strong character in the film is Hoover's right hand man Clyde Tolson. The actor who plays Mr. Tolson is Armie Hammer, who only last year was playing two versions of himself as The Winkelvoss Twins in 'The Social Network.' Hammer is the only guy in this movie to actually compete with DiCaprio's Hoover, and he does it flawlessly. While the Oscars are probably not in his cards quite yet, Hammer is on the fast track to becoming one of Hollywood's best actors.

The other two supporting characters, Helen Gandy and Anne Marie, are played by the always fantastic Naomi Watts and Dame Judi Dench. Talk about girl power, because these lovely ladies are simply brilliant in their parts, Watts in particular. In my opinion, she was the most realistic character in the film, which means that you could believe that the original Gandy acted that way. Dench was also a very interesting character, because she plays Hoover's homophobic mother, whom. You don't find this out until about an hour or so into the film, but it's expected because half of this movie took place in the 30's, and it's somewhat implied in the trailer. The entire cast was very good, but it's probably going to be DiCaprio in the end that gets the Oscar talks, despite strong performances from all who played.

Visual flaws are clearly seen in all movies, which can somewhat take away from believing a certain scene or just distract you from what is going on. The makeup used to age the three main leads is some of the worst makeup I've seen in a movie in a long time. While Leo looks and acts the part of the 77 year old Edgar, I saw him looking more and more like Jon Voight after each scene, which makes you question why Voight wasn't cast for the old man part if the makeup department was trying to make DiCaprio look like Voight as the old Hoover. It's in some ways laughable to see Leo, such a great actor, looking like Angelina Jolie's father rather than the father of the FBI. If you think from what was just said that Leo was the worst looking old person in this movie, think again.

The worst looking person in the 1970's stage of the film is Armie Hammer's character Clyde Tolson. I have no idea what the makeup department was trying to create, but Tolson looked as if a fat, unrecognizable mask was put on his face the width of two bars of soap, with barely any resemblance to the younger version we see throughout the other half of the film. The only convincing makeup for a character is for Naomi Watts' Helen Gandy. She as an old lady looks deeply convincing and not as plastic as the two male leads and their rubber glory. Still though, that does not take away the fact that the terrible makeup only adds to the disappointment of the film.

The screenwriter of 'J. Edgar' is Dustin Lance Black, who directed the award crazy 2008 movie 'Milk,' which also happened to have a gay romance between the main character and a supporting character. 'Milk' just so happens to have been Black's last screenplay and only screenplay before this, so it seems that Black likes to write about homosexuals and the controversy between them during certain time periods. Black is openly gay in real life, which makes me question if he can only write movies about homosexuals. I assure you that I am not a homophobic, but I just believe that he should try to be more diverse when he's writing his movies.

The movie is not as mediocre as early reviews said, yet it's not as great as we all hoped it would be. The cast is good enough, and the script isn't bad despite its almost central focus on the gay aspect of Hoover's possibly secret life with Mr. Tolson. However the makeup is some of the worst use of makeup ever used in a movie, the editing is very choppy despite a solid final 10 minutes where we find out that almost everything accomplished by Edgar in real life might not have actually happened the way his memoir says, and the music sometimes doesn't make a lot of sense. Audiences will be split on this film, some praising it and some will walk out about an hour and a half in. I myself am split in the middle of these people, but more on the positive side than negative. If you want to see an interesting biopic despite some major flaws, then you should check this out. However if you're expecting a full blown Oscar tour de force, then forget about it! Outside of acting, this movie will not get nominated for any awards at all. Overall 'J. Edgar' is a good movie with a good cast, though don't go into this over 2 hour flick (and sometimes slow) expecting a fantastic film.

GUEST REVIEW: Immortals (2D Test Screening)

MOVIE
Immortals

CAST
Henry Cavill, Stephen Dorff

RATING
R

RELEASE
November 11, 2011

DIRECTOR
Tarsem Singh

STUDIO
Relativity Media

RUNNING TIME
approx. 2 hours 10 minutes




STARS
**1/2










REVIEW:

Way back in mid May of this year, there was an early test screening of this weekend's new release, 'Immortals,' starring Mickey Rourke. I was unable to attend, mainly because the projected MPAA rating even then was R. So I passed my passes along to a fellow movie screening fanatic named Cheryl, and I asked her to write a review on what she saw. Here are her thoughts on the film, though I can tell you that she did not see it in 3D, because of how early her cut of the film was. Without further ado, here is Cheryl's review of 'Immortals.'

King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) is pissed off with the world in Ancient Greece. So he decides he will disfigure a lot of men, put masks on them and wage a war like Humanity has never seen. But to do this, he must find the Epirus Bow, which can shoot arrows of tremendous power and, more importantly, free the titans. Now the Titans had been entombed in the walls of Mt. Tartaros since the Gods had defeated them many years ago. King Hyperion knew they wanted revenge and freeing them would not only cause destruction on Earth, but in the Heavens as well.

All the while the Gods know this, and due to some ancient laws that forbid them to interfere with earthly conflicts, they are helpless to stop this madness. However, Zeus (Luke Evans) had an ace up his sleeve, a peasant by the name of Theseus (Henry Cavill), whom he had been grooming since he was a child to lead the world in case of emergency. And Theseus, having watched his mother get her throat slit by one of King Hyperion’s men, accepted the challenge readily, even though he did not know that Zeus was actually his puppet master. And this is where the story ends and the movie begins.

Immortals relies too heavily on its blood, gore and fight scenes. Visually, the throat cutting and gratuitous killing and self mutilation seem all too real and times, and for some may be a bit too much. However, without it, there wouldn’t be much movie left. The dialogue is weak to non existent. Theseus does make one long winded speech during the Epic Battle fight scene, but we knew he would didn’t we? There is also a sub plot where Theseus, is told he must protect the Virgin Oracle Phaedra and he does so after her and her maidens save him. And while protecting her, he sleeps with her. (Really?)

Immortals is going to be considered an epic film by some. Others will think of it as a glorified bloodbath, with scenes stolen from the film “300.” As Director Taresm Singh did both 300 and Immortals, you have to wonder if the rehashed scenes were because he ran out of ideas or because he knew Immortals wasn’t a very good movie and 300 was. In any event, if you liked 300, you will probably like Immortals. It won’t blow you away, but if you love to see extreme battles with lots of blood and no script you’ll enjoy the film. We can only give it 2 ½ stars out of 4 due to the lack of originality and script. At 2 hrs and 10 minutes, we should have gotten more.

REWIND REVIEW: Water for Elephants

MOVIE

Water For Elephants

CAST

Robert Pattinson,

Reese Witherspoon

RATING

PG-13

RELEASE
April 22, 2011

DIRECTOR

Francis Lawrence

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
2 hours



STARS
****









REVIEW:

Whether you're afraid of clowns or are really claustrophobic for the matter, you cannot deny that going to the Circus is quite a magical experience. I'm not talking about something like 'The Ringling Bros.' where they have their shows in big stadiums. The real type of circus is the one where you enter a tent, sit on a bleacher, and just enjoy the show. But have you ever wondered what goes on before and after the tent is set up? Well that question, possibly for the circus' of 1931, is answered in 'Water for Elephants,' a movie that has just come onto home video release. In case you missed the movie back in April (like how I did) or don't know what the book's about, the story is about a boy who has just lost both of his parents and has decided to jump on a train belonging to the fictional circus group The Benzini Brothers. On this train he, along with the audience, meets drunken clowns, horny showgirls, and a villainous ringmaster whose wife is the star attraction. Let it be hold that in the predictable scheme of things, homeless boy falls in love with star girl, and a 'Titanic' like romance ensues. While at first glance it would be just another romance film, 'Water for Elephants' does something special in combining romance, drama, and intensity into a fantastic two hour film. If you are a hopeless romantic or enjoy the movie 'Titanic' a lot, then 'Water for Elephants' is your perfect movie. No wonder readers fell in love with the story, because it is simply fantastic.  If I had read the book before seeing this, I might have had a different take on the film.  But with the mind of a guy who doesn't read a lot of books, I can honestly say that 'Water for Elephants' is a spellbinding, wonderful film.


Despite having a solid future ahead of him, Robert Pattinson has always been a mixed bag. In case you have been living under a rock for the past three years, Pattinson is Edward, the sparkling vampire guy from the 'Twilight' movies. Recently though, he has been starring in much more serious movies like the intense drama 'Remember Me.' Seeing him in this movie only makes me believe that Pattinson has a very strong career ahead of him. While he isn't as great in this as he was in 'Remember Me,' Pattinson shows how much he's grown from being a loving sparkling vampire, despite shooting the last one as we speak. I cannot wait until Pattinson is considered to be an Award worthy star, which might be very soon if he keeps heading on this smart career move. Reese Witherspoon is also in this movie, and she is surprisingly better than I expected. Having only seen her be in stupid romantic comedies, I never expected Witherspoon to actually act in something. Sure she won an Oscar for 'Walk the Line' back in 2005, but I never saw that so this is my first glimpse at the Award version of Witherspoon. Even though Pattinson and Witherspoon are the headliners of this flick, they in no way whatsoever outshine the best thing about this movie: Christolph Waltz.

Ever since he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as a Nazi Hunter in 'Inglorious Bastards,' Christolph Waltz has been all over the place, most recently in corny 3D movies like 'The Green Hornet' and 'The Three Musketeers.' It seemed that Waltz was only relying on these corny 3D flicks in order to get a paycheck, so many wondered if he was just throwing his acting abilities away. Luckily he presents a role that's very devious, menacing, and dark for the matter. No comparison to 'Bastards' can be made because yours truly has not seen 'Bastards' yet. Christolph Waltz was in fact the best thing about this movie. If this film is recognized at all by the Academy, Waltz should at least be considered for a supporting actor nomination.

Romances can be very predictable and stupid cash grabs when it comes to going to or renting a movie. 'Water for Elephants' may be a predictable film, it carries on with its drama, intensity, and amazing chemistry between all of the actors. Waltz steals the show, but Pattinson and Witherspoon show why they're considered actors in the first place. Director Francis Lawrence has made a movie that captures a powerful look at both the cruelty of the olden circus, as well as how far people can go to get the one they love. If you're expecting a 'Twilight' like romance with some bad acting and a plain story, just walk away and don't look back. Also if you don't like seeing humans and animals (yes, I said animals) being tortured by sadistic men, then stay away from this movie. Actually, here's a basic equation of what 'Water for Elephants' is: If 'Titanic,' 'Twilight,' (just for the main lead) and the circus conceived a baby together, then you get 'Water for Elephants.' Awards probably won't be in this film's future, but that doesn't stop it from being one of the year's most genuine and powerful films. It's out on DVD and On-Demand, so why wait to see it. You'll surely be missing out on a great movie. Now if only the circus was coming to town sometime soon...

FESTIVAL REVIEW: Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey

MOVIE
Being Elmo:
A Puppeteer's Journey

CAST
Kevin Clash / Elmo

RATING
PG
RELEASE
October 21, 2011 (LIMITED)
Expanding throughout Holidays!

DIRECTOR
Constance Marks

STUDIO
Submarine Deluxe

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 16 minutes




STARS
****








REVIEW:

It seems that most of the years best films have something to do with childhood.  For example, 'Super 8,' while a Spielberg homage and a sci-fi thriller, was a story of kids filming a low budget zombie flick and having a fun time at heart.  The final 'Harry Potter' film ended a decade long movie franchise that generations of children grew up on.  Now we have 'Being Elmo:' a documentary that captures the life of Kevin Clash, also known as the man behind the most lovable Sesame Street character of all time, Elmo.  Having grown up watching Elmo on TV and on VHS, I was very excited to see this documentary, which made a huge splash at Sundance earlier this year.  The Philly Film Festival decided to bring director Constance Marks and the man with the puppet into the City of Brotherly Love, so my family was THERE.  Luckily, this movie lived up to the Sundance hype as it was funny, heartwarming, and emotional as heck.  'Being Elmo' might have been the only movie at the festival where I was actually crying in it.  If you have a heart of any kind, 'Being Elmo' is the single must see movie of the year, and the most heartwarming movie to come out since 'Toy Story 3.'  Scratch that, this movie is better than 'Toy Story 3!' 

I almost guarantee that no other movie will tug at your heart strings while at the same time sweetening it up quite like 'Elmo does.  You see the hard side of a puppeteer's life, and the sacrifices Clash had to make throughout life, including working on Jim Henson's 'The Dark Crystal.'  People will be crying, and they should be.  Like 'Toy Story,' you get some nice laughs out of the film as well as a great story and lots of heart.  If you can't handle one of those three things, do you even have a soul?  The film's currently making its way around the country, so I'd suggest taking a look at this 76 minute documentary when it hits your area. I'd only say leave the kids home because the exposure of Clash as Elmo may be as shocking to them as Santa not being real. But whatever way you can, go find and check out the sweetest and most heartfelt movie of the year: 'Being Elmo.' There is no better entertainment anywhere out there right now that is so honest and sweet as this movie.










Director Constance Marks, Kevin Clash/Elmo, and other crew members at the Philly screening of 'Being Elmo.' (Sorry for the crappy shot)

REVIEW: Tower Heist

MOVIE
Tower Heist

CAST
Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
November 4, 2011

DIRECTOR
Brett Ratner

STUDIO
Universal Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 44 minutes



STARS
***1/2












REVIEW:

Have you ever been so ripped off by a wealthy businessman that you wanted to steal millions of dollars in order to square it even? Neither have I, but that’s exactly how the staff in 'Tower Heist' feel. They work in a building called “The Tower,” a luxury high-rise in New York. Arthur Shaw is the building’s richest resident, and he is in some serious trouble with the law. His punishment is house arrest, which might not exactly be a bad thing. The staff in The Tower, led by the head of The Tower’s staff Josh Kovacs, has learned that they’ve fallen victim to a Ponzi scheme run by Shaw. With the help of a recent ex-convict, the staff of The Tower devise a plan to rob Shaw of everything he has and get the money that was taken from them. 'Tower Heist' may sound like a full blown action thriller ala 'Oceans 11,' but surprisingly enough it is a comedy along the lines of 'Rush Hour.' With comedies you are supposed to laugh, and laughing is exactly what you’ll be doing when seeing this hilarious comedy. It's rare when my sister comes out of a movie and says "I want to buy this on DVD," so when I hear her coming out of a movie theater saying that I know that this movie will make anybody laugh their brains out. 'Tower Heist' is far from a perfect comedy, but it is most definitely one of the funniest movies of the year.
The last time we got a huge cast like the one in 'Tower Heist' was the ensemble comedy 'The Big Year,' and that one didn't quite live up to expectations. Eddie Murphy is one of the many comedians in this movie who were born from the humor of the 1980s. Murphy plays Slide, the criminal hired by the staff to help with the robbery. Murphy hasn’t made many PG-13 comedies in the past decade, so he returns onto the scene with full force as he provides many of the movie’s hilarious jokes. Sure the jokes are as stupid and immature as the 7th grader we once were, but it’s almost impossible not to laugh at anything that comes out of his mouth. The rest of the supporting cast, including Matthew Broderick in possibly his funniest role in recent memory, were all hysterical in their crazy roles. How can you not enjoy a movie with Academy Award nominee Gabourey Sidibe playing a kick ass maid? That's almost the equivalent of seeing Helen Mirren using a shot gun. However there was one weak link in the movie, which is very disappointing because he can be funny, and he is unfortunately the lead actor of the film. It pains me to say this ladies and gentlemen, but funnyman Ben Stiller is 'Tower Heist's' weak link.

Ben Stiller hasn't been in a creative live action comedy since 2004's 'Dodgeball,' where he was incredibly hilarious as the villainous White Goodman. Even in the 'Meet the Parents' movies, he's just that guy who seems to only know how to say "Yeah I, um, so uh, Yeah" as his lines of dialogue and get a paycheck for saying them. It's not only the "Yeah. Um's" we get from him, we also get his really fake argument voice when he's either trying to motivate someone in order to get the story started or argue at someone for some apparent reason. He also tries to act cool by breaking things (a Ferrari for example) and be his own "badass." To top that all off, Stiller dons a pretty bad Brooklyn accent, and I'd know because some of my family comes from Brooklyn. He may be the film's headliner, but Ben Stiller is the weakest actor 'Tower Heist' has to offer.

For those who don't know what foreshadowing is, it is a story technique where an author (or screenwriter in this case) purposely puts something small in their story only to show it's true importance towards the end. 'Tower Heist' uses foreshadowing in a very smart way, which many films haven't been able to do with perfection. 'Tower Heist' is funny, cool, and sleek, but is also one of the rare smart comedies to come out this year. The cast is hilarious and great, (except for Stiller) the story while not original is clever, and it's just one plain old fun time at the movies. This film was made purely for the laughs, and director Brett Ratner delivers the goods. This is Ratner's best movie since the original 'Rush Hour,' which also plays with insane jokes and a crime plot. Audiences everywhere will be laughing their asses off and just having a good time, which is the sole purpose of why a film should be made. Audiences may also see a strong resemblance to the Bernie Madoff story from a couple of years back, because the film takes some material from that case.

This weekend (November 4) also offers audiences the non-stop raunchy 3D comedy 'A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas,' which will appeal to some demographics. While I haven't seen any 'Harold and Kumar' movie, I still bet that this will be the better comedy to come out because it can appeal to everyone. I haven't seen my sister, a 10 year old, laugh so much in a movie all year, even though some of the jokes went over her head. If you want to check out a smart and hilarious comedy this weekend, don your terrible/fake Brooklyn accents, (if I offended anyone from brooklyn, I apologize) develop a stereotypical African American persona, (again, an apology to anyone who's offended) and go on a fun ride with 'Tower Heist.' I guarantee that audiences will be laughing about the film for many days after leaving the movie theater.