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.