At the closing of the summer....: 10 favorite movies of the summer of 2012

So, I've spent the week setting up my classroom, planning lessons, going to back to school BBQ's.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, for all intents and purposes, the summer is over.  Sigh.  Well, rather than bemoan the lost days of sun and waking up later than 5:30 a.m., I'm going to do an end o' the summer movie blog.

First, let's look at the box-office.  One of the most surprising things about the summer 2012 box-office is that there were not really any surprises.   There was no "The Help" or "Bridesmaides".  The top movies of the summer were the giant special-effects driven superhero movies, followed by a couple popular computer animated films, a raunchy r-rated comedy and a few mildly successful sequels, much like the summer of 2005...or the summer of 2008....or the summer of 2009....2011.....well, you get the picture.

Here are the top ten box-office hits of the summer (box-office figures as of 8/30/12):

1.  The Avengers - $617 million

2.  The Dark Knight Rises - $424 million

3. The Amazing Spider-Man - $258 million

4. Brave - $230 million

5. Ted - $215 million

6.  Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - $213 million

7. Men in Black III - $178 million

8. Snow White and the Huntsman - $155 million

9. Ice Age: Continental Drift - $154 million

10. Prometheus - $126 million

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the summer is HOW big the top movie was.  The big movie of the summer was, of course, "The Avengers", which is currently sitting at $617 million domestically and still going (it's getting a wide re-release this next week as an end of the summer hoorah).  At the beginning of the summer, the most generous projections I read for "The Avengers" put it just above $300 million and most predicted it would be the 2nd biggest movie of the summer.  I have my own theories about why it was so successful, but I'll share that a little later.

Another interesting thing to note is that only one film in the top ten was poorly reviewed ("Ice Age") and only three received mostly mixed-reviews ("Ted", "Men in Black III", and "Snow White and the Huntsman"), the rest were positively reviewed.  In fact, the top two movies of the summer were also two of the most acclaimed movies by critics, which is pretty odd for the summer months, but, of course, this summer didn't contain a "Transformers" movie....

Alright, enough with the numbers.  Let's get to my favorite movies of the summer!

10.  Snow White and the Huntsman - The plot of this movie is OK as a traditional fairy-tale meets "Lord of the Rings"-type revisionist experiment, but the film shines in two areas:  First and foremost, it's beautiful to look at.  I truly can't think of a more visually striking movie released this summer.  You could pause any moment of this movie, print it and throw it up on the wall of a museum.  This makes me very curious what director Rupert Sanders (who, of course, is now more well-known as the perv who made out with Kristen Stewart) could do with a better script.  Secondly, the two leading actresses own their parts, and yes, I even mean Kristen Stewart.  Between her strong performance and Charlize Theron's delightful scenery chewing, this is a pretty great argument for more female-centric action films.

9.  The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - In some ways, this movie could've just been called "Eat, Pray, Clean Dentures", since it's really the same type of wish-fulfillment fantasy masquerading as substantial dramedy that the hit Julia Roberts film was.  However, I respected "Marigold Hotel" a LOT more than "Eat, Pray, Love".  Largely because the characters are genuine and it boasts a truly awesome cast.  Honestly, I would've watched an entire movie of just Judi Dench and Maggie Smith.  They are fantastic in this film.  Also, "Hotel" had a beautiful sincerity as opposed to simple sentimentality.  It's not a classic, but it's perfectly pleasant.

8.  Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - Pixar owns the animated roost in terms of depth and storytelling, but DreamWorks has made it's fortune betting on the funny and they definitely beat the house with this one.  The first two "Madagascar" films were mildly funny, but this one takes the characters and throws them into situation after situation of surreal, Monty Python-esque proportions.  I don't think I found an extended scene in any movie this summer more innately hilarious than one which extols the redemptive powers of Edith Piaf.  If you've found any of the other "Madagascar" movies lacking, this one still might surprise you.

7.  The Bourne Legacy - The first three Bourne movies are among the best action movies ever made.  Therefore, the entire idea of continuing the franchise without Matt Damon was seriously daunting.  The movie did kick the franchise a little to the side and if suffers from a tad of "been there done that", but it also boasts a very likable leading duo in Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz and the hope of a possible Renner/Damon sequel, which could potentially explode from awesomeness.  

6.  ParaNorman - Creepy, funny and fun to look at, "ParaNorman" adds to "Coraline" in showing that Laika Animation is a force to be reckoned with.  There's a surprising warmth and humanity to the two-leads that transcends the stereotypes that abound in everyone else.  It's not appropriate for young children, but it should be fine for older kids.  It's all in the name of good, spooky fun.

5.  Brave - If you read my blog, you already know what I found disappointing about this one, so let's focus on what was great.  "Brave" marks a new high in visual splendor from Pixar.  Most of the backgrounds are stunningly photo-realistic, while the characters are delightfully broad in their proportions.  Plus, Merida is such a strong, independent and down-right fun character that the song "I Am Not My Hair" could've been written about her, inspite of her glorious locks.  Also, what a relief to see the mother/daughter relationship brought to the forefront of an artistic medium usually reserved for 10 year-old boys.  It's not the most perfect Pixar movie, but it will, undoubtedly, be considered a classic among animated films for years to come.

4.  The Amazing Spider-Man - I almost put this one lower on the list, but the fact of the matter is that the only negative thing I can really say about it is that it was completely unnecessary.  Other than that, it's really a fun movie, with terrific performances, great action sequences, and a fantastic balance between rollercoaster thrills and dramatic gravitas.  Here's hoping that the next one will not have the same feeling of deja vu.  Also, here's hoping Columbia and Marvel figure out a way to at least get Spidey a cameo in the next "Avengers" movie.

3. Moonrise Kingdom - Wes Anderson is an auteur in the truest sense of the word.  Within 30 seconds of a Wes Anderson film, there's no question who the director is.  He has a sense of quirky humor, uncomfortable dialogue, and uglification (yes, that's a word in my world) of beautiful actors that is practically trademarkable (yes, I just invented that word too).  The plot of "Moonrise Kingdom" has a surprising amount in common with "The Blue Lagoon", just without the controversial nudity.  It's largely about two pre-teen kids experimenting with their burgeoning physical feelings and yearning to be considered "grown-ups", the only difference here is that Anderson clearly believes that these two characters are more mature than most of the adults that inhabit their world.  I can't say I agree with all of the conclusions made in this movie, but I can say that Anderson has created a brilliantly written cinescape that will be studied by film students for decades to come.

2.  The Dark Knight Rises - A simply perfect ending to one of the greatest film trilogies of all time.  Plus, it bucks the legend that "third" movies are always the weakest.  It certainly doesn't have an instantly iconic performance that rivals Heath Ledger's in "The Dark Knight", but every performance is spot on, especially Anne Hathaway as the mysterious Selina Kyle.  She transforms into the role for which many considered her to be miscast....that is until they saw the movie.  Exciting, topical, frightening, and, most importantly, immensely satisfying, "The Dark Knight Rises" is the 3rd act in a real cinematic masterpiece.

1.  "The Avengers" - Yes, I'm aware that "The Dark Knight Rises" is more serious than "The Avengers".  However, the two aren't mutually comparable as they are truly different genres ("Dark Knight" is a crime drama, "Avengers" is a flat-out action extravaganza).  To be honest, I almost considered tying "The Dark Knight Rises" and "The Avengers" at number one for the summer because they are both as close to perfect as a summer movie gets, but there's one thing that, in my mind, gives "The Avengers" the advantage:  It's more surprising.  When I saw "The Avengers" there were five spontaneous moments of applause in the theater, and this wasn't a hyped-to-the-wall midnight showing.  It was a matinee, where folks are usually a little more sedate.  These moments bring to mind the idea that you should never give a standing ovation unless you physically can not stay in your seat.  That's how these moments felt, so overwhelmingly fun, rousing and surprising that you couldn't help but applaud.  I've seen "The Avengers" in theaters a few times now and it simply doesn't fail to get the audience all giddy and that's why I think it's made over $600 million in the U.S. alone, because even after you've seen it once, it still sounds like the most fun you could have at a theater on any given weekend.  Repeat viewings coupled with repeat surprises are what make a film turn into cultural phenomenon.  "Star Wars", "E.T.", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Jurassic Park", "The Dark Knight"..... "The Avengers" fits onto this list very nicely.

So, there you have it.  With school starting, I'll try to keep up on the blog even though I haven't done a great job with that during the school year in the past.  Thanks for reading!!!

Prognosticating Pixar: Is the moment of "story comes first" gone?

"Story comes first."  It's a simple concept that has been the defining force behind the greatest critical and financial run in Hollywood history.  Not one of the greatest, but unquestionably the greatest.  Other studios, directors, actors, and other artists have had comparable runs of financial success and others have had similar critical praise, but no one has ever had both at the same level as Pixar Animation Studios.  From 1995 to 2010, Pixar produced 11 films, all of which were runaway hits at the box-office and 10 of which were among the most critically-acclaimed films of their year of release (only 2006's "Cars" had to live with just being "mostly well reviewed").  What was it that made Pixar so different from the other animated movie producers?  Sure, Pixar movies look amazing, but so do the films made by DreamWorks and Disney.  Pixar films make sure there's plenty of humor for adults and children, but that seems to be the sole goal of every other animation studio anymore.  No, Pixar got where they were because of those three simple words....."story comes first."

John Lasseter, the creative head of Pixar and now the head of animation at Disney as well, has emphatically stated Pixar's dedication to story and character from the beginning.  The mantra "story comes first" pops up on almost every Pixar "making-of" video, from conception to animation to publicity.  This is how they built their kingdom and how they became the best in the industry.

In January of 2006, something happened that worried fans of the studio however.  Disney purchased Pixar for $7.4 billion.  Why would that worry fans?  Aren't Disney and Pixar the perfect team?  After all, Disney had distributed every Pixar film up to that point, it seemed like it would be a natural fit to the casual observer, but Pixar fans were worried that Disney's influence would now be more aggressively visible in Pixar's output, which was a bit upsetting,  considering that Disney had been playing catch-up in the animation game for the first half of the decade, a genre that they used to not only lead, but monopolized.

Disney made the very wise business decision of making Lasseter the head of Disney animation as part of the deal.  This helped calm the Pixar fan base a little bit.  It seemed that their goal wasn't to make Pixar more "Disney-fied" but to infuse Disney with a little Pixar magic.

"Cars" was the first film to be released after the deal, but it would be unfair to consider it an accurate gauge of Disney's influence on Pixar's films because it was mostly completed at the beginning of 2006.  However, that didn't stop the tongues from wagging after the reviews started coming out.  The critics didn't consider it a flop, but they also didn't consider it to be the home-run classic that the previous Pixar films had been.  Many began questioning the amount that Disney paid for Pixar, wondering if it had been a terrible business deal for the company.  By the end of the summer, their tunes had changed.....

You see, while "Cars" wasn't a critical darling, or even a "Finding Nemo"-sized smash, it made over $6 BILLION dollars in merchandising.  Let that number sink in for a little bit.  $6 billion dollars.  In fact, the "Cars" brand-name is the 2nd most successful film-based merchandising name of all-time.  It's 2nd only to "Star Wars", which invented movie merchandising as we now know it.  So, while the movie itself didn't win Pixar any big awards, it earned Disney BIG money.  Therefore, Disney was OK to let Pixar do what they wanted for a little while.

"Ratatouille" remains my favorite Pixar film.  I love that little rat.

That decision, to leave Pixar alone and let them do their thing, lead to four of the most acclaimed animated features of all-time:  "Ratatouille", "WALL-E", "Up", and "Toy Story 3".  All four of these movies received across-the-board raves from film critics and each of them broke the $200 million mark at the box-office.  This is a pretty amazing accomplishment considering that "Ratatouille" is about rats in the kitchen, "WALL-E" contains virtually no dialogue for the first half of the film, and "Up" is an action-comedy starring an 80-year-old with a bad hip and a chubby little kid.  None of these three movies had stories that screamed "BOX OFFICE SMASH", but each of them had intricately created stories nurtured by truly gifted and passionate artists.

"Toy Story 3" was, for me, the make or break movie.  It was the first film that wasn't in development at the time of the Pixar purchase by Disney.  It would be the first movie to truly show whether there was upper-management influence on the films at Pixar.  Heck, even it's existence pointed to there being at least a little influence, because Disney had been clear from the time of the purchase that they wanted to see more sequels from the studio.  However, the great thing is that Pixar waited to revisit Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang until they had the right story, and they were right to do that.  "Toy Story 3" became the top box-office film of 2010 and the most critically-acclaimed wide release of the year.

So why am I worried about the future of the company?  It's only been two years since "TS3" blew away audiences and skeptics alike.  What could've happened in the interim?

Even Mater's big heart couldn't pump an emotional core into this one.

Well, first off, "Cars 2" happened.  Let me state from the outset that I don't think "Cars 2" is a bad movie.  I do, however, think that it's WAY below the previously set standards of the company, and I think that is because it's the first that didn't follow the Pixar motto:  "Story comes first."

"Cars 2" didn't get produced because the people at Pixar were passionate about the characters and had figured out a wonderful way to incorporate them into a new adventure.  "Cars 2" was produced because "Cars" sold $6 billion dollars in merchandise.  Even though Pixar did a great job making the movie as visually exciting and as humorous as it is, it still comes off as the worlds most elaborate toy commercial.  You don't get the feeling that the creative force at Pixar said, "I have a great idea for a 'Cars' sequel!"  You get the feeling an executive said, "How many more Mater toys could we sell if he were rocket powered and armed?"

Of course, the critics, for the most part, savaged "Cars 2".  It remains the only Pixar film to get a "rotten" score on the critic compilation website Rottentomatoes.com.   Even the best reviews (including my own) could only say that if it were from any other studio, it would be a passable entertainment, but coming from Pixar came as a major disappointment.

I held out hope though, because the next Pixar film wasn't a sequel.  In fact, it wasn't the type of film anyone had seen from Pixar.  It was a princess film set in medieval Scottland called "Brave."  I was also excited because it was directed by Brenda Chapman, an incredibly talented animator and story-teller.  The thought of her getting to tell a female-centric story with all of the talent and passion at Pixar was more than enough to wipe out the memory of "Cars 2" related disappointment.

Surely, this Scottish lass would save the day, but could she save the studio?

Then Chapman was rather suddenly replaced as director by Mark Andrews (she still retains a co-director credit in the final film).  This didn't necessarily sound any alarms.  It wasn't the first time the reins of direction had switched mid-production at Pixar.  If anything, it indicated that the creative force wanted to make sure it was as good a film as it could be.  In fact, it wasn't until earlier this spring, when interviews from the filmmakers started to come out as part of the "Brave" publicity push that I started to have my doubts.  

In the interviews, Chapman talked about how "Brave", like all of the great Pixar films, started out of personal experience.  It was based out of experiences as a daughter and a mother.  It was fueled by her passion for creating a story that brought the mother/daughter relationship to the center, something that had never really been done in animation.  Conversely, Andrews talked about how he was brought on to bring more action and humor to the movie because there was concern it wouldn't play with little boys.  It was really the first time I'd heard someone from Pixar say that they made major creative changes in a story, not because of the story itself, but because it wouldn't play with a certain demographic.  Did they back away from "Ratatouille" because the idea of rats in the kitchen is just kinda icky?  No, in spite of the fact that I actually know people that still won't watch it because of that very ickiness.  Did they make WALL-E a wise-talking robot because they were worried little boys wouldn't have the attention span to watch a mechanical Charlie Chaplin?  No, and the movie was all the better for it.  Little boys and little girls love good stories, just like the rest of us.

When I finally saw "Brave" earlier this summer, my worries were simultaneously eased and confirmed.  Chapman's movie was clearly still there.  Merida's relationship with her mother is very much the heart of the story.  However, Andrews' movie was there too.  There were odd-fitting pop-culture references (including a joke about the witch's cauldron doubling as an answering machine, which is ripped right out of "Shrek 2") multiple brawls, and a surprising amount of jokes centered around seen and implied nudity.  I feel that "Brave" is two-thirds one of Pixar's best movies and one-third one of their weakest.  I really think that if they had let Chapman finish her film and gave Andrews an entirely different movie to work on, they would've really had something.  Andrews is also a very talented writer and filmmaker, but I don't think his sensibilities were best served on this deeply personal story from Chapman.

That having been said, two-thirds of a great Pixar movie is still a pretty darn good movie.  There's no doubt in my mind I will enjoy "Brave" for years to come.  I also don't doubt that I will watch it with a twinge of sadness for what it might have been.

Then, a few weeks ago, I heard a bit of news that made my Pixar-loving heart cry a little bit.  They announced "Finding Nemo 2".  First off, this is a story that was beautifully told, but it ended.  There was nothing about that story that was left unresolved.  There's not an area of that story that begs to be revisited.  It's perfect as is.  However, it's not even the existence of a sequel that concerned me the most.  It's how it came to be.

You see, "Finding Nemo" was directed by Andrew Stanton, one of the original "supah-genuises" at Pixar.  He worked on "Toy Story" and "A Bug's Life".  He also directed "WALL-E".  He is the man.  However, after "WALL-E", he wanted to work on another passion project of his.  He decided to make his first live-action motion picture for Walt Disney studios.  He wanted to take a shot at bringing Edgar Rice Burroughs' "John Carter of Mars" to the big screen.  His film "John Carter" premiered earlier this spring to mixed reviews and a disastrous box-office. (I still recommend it though.  It's a pretty fun movie.)  He still wanted to make more live-action films, to which Disney said, "Sure....if you make 'Finding Nemo 2' first".  

Now, I'm sure that Stanton will bring all of his considerable talent to the table.  There's no doubt in my mind that he will work as hard as he can to create a wonderful film.  The thing that worries me is that old Pixar mantra....."Story comes first."  The decision to make a "Finding Nemo 2" or a "Monsters University" (coming next summer to a theater near you!) should not be made by a studio executive.  Leave those kinds of fiscally fueled decisions to the people working on another "Ice Age" movie or the newest adventures of the "Madagascar" penguins.  A Pixar sequel should be made because a terrific idea sprung from one of the gifted artists employed by the studio.  It should be made because a character had room to grow at the end of the first film and a great story idea of how to perpetuate that growth had sprouted from the creative playground/working environment of Pixar's famous headquarters.  A Pixar movie should never come into existence as matter of career bartering.

In order to explain my final area of concern regarding the future of Pixar, I need to explain my theory of "movie moments."  I believe that every truly great film has at least one "moment".  A moment that surprises you or takes your breath a way.  A moment that makes you move to the edge of your seat just so you can immerse yourself in it.  A moment when the story, the visual, the music, the dialogue (or lack thereof), the character development all come together in such a perfect way, that you realize you're no longer watching a movie, you're witnessing the creation of a lasting work of art.  Every classic film has at least one of these surprising, beguiling moments.  Furthermore, every Pixar movie had at least one of these moments....until 2011.

Would you say we've had a plethora of great Pixar moments?

Unsurprisingly, "Cars 2" was never really concerned with providing moments that elevated it to high art.  At its best, "Cars 2" is amusing, at its worst, it's crass commercialism.  However, I'm disappointed to say that "Brave", a movie that should have been filled with such moments, never had one, at least not for me.  As much as I enjoyed it, there was never a moment that surprised me, there was never an image that took my breath away, there was never a line of dialogue that connected me to the characters in a deeply emotional way.  Again, I think there might have been had Brenda Chapman been allowed to see her vision through from beginning to end, but as is, there simply are no "classic" moments.

In full disclosure, I do not right this blog as a casual observer.  I'm writing it from a room in my house affectionately known as "Pixarland".  There is a large sign above the window that says "Welcome to Pixarland."  Original theatrical posters from Pixar films are framed and make a sort of wallpaper around the entire room.  At the side of my desk hangs a talking "Flik" room alarm that Ruth bought for me while we were dating.  There are two curio cabinets to my left filled with Pixar toys and memorabilia.  Atop the two cabinets are talking WALL-E and Dug toys and a plethora of Pixar-based "Little Golden Books".  Behind me is a WALL-E clock and home-made placards that outline different facts about every single Pixar movie.   I am a Pixar superfan.  However, I also write this blog as a lover of film in general and the place that Pixar has carved out for itself in the history of film is a pretty impressive one.  It is, as such a fan, that I am concerned about the future of Pixar.  It is my sincere hope that Disney realizes that the thing that makes Pixar unique and, as a result, successful, is its utter lack of concern for focus groups and demographics.  It is my sincere hope that the creative forces at Pixar remember to put more trust in their artists than in toy sales.  It is my most sincere hope that recent films and behind the scenes developments at the studio are merely a hiccup and that the dedication to the idea that "story comes first" will re-establish itself at Pixar, a studio that has proven itself time and time again as a haven for those that believe movies can be great art and great entertainments at the same time.  Here's hoping......

Movie Review: ParaNorman

ParaNorman / Focus Features / Rated PG / 93 min. / Dir. by Chris Butler and Sam Fell

Walt Disney understood something that many current makers of children's entertainment fail to realize, that it's OK, even healthy for kids to experience fear when watching a movie, especially if there's a purpose behind the scares.  His earliest films have more blatantly dark elements than most things the studio would dare put into the market today (although 2009's "The Princess and the Frog" certainly didn't shy away from the dark side).  "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "Fantasia", "Dumbo", they all have moments that are seriously upsetting.  As a kid, these moments scared me, but I felt a little braver for having witnessed them.  Plus, they taught me messages.  "Pinocchio" taught me that if I lead a hedonistic lifestyle, I will turn into a jackass.  "Dumbo" taught me that excessive drink will make me dream about freaky pink elephants.  "Fantasia" taught me that I should never, ever, ever visit Bald Mountain at night.  You know, important messages like that.

Of course, some modern films still use fear as a teaching tool for children, but there are a few animators that have taken the fear a step further, making horror movies for kids.  Tim Burton started it with "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and continued with "The Corpse Bride" and his upcoming "Frankenweenie".  While his animated films have had macabre elements, the theme is often that when dark things are shined in light, they're not really that scary.  However, others have added more adult elements in this types of films, making them feel more like animated horror films for older kids and adults than kids movies.  "Monster House" fit this mold as did Laika Animation Studio's "Coraline".  Well, Laika is at it again with "ParaNorman", a visually engaging, entertaining and often thoughtfully poignant movie that is definitely not for small children.

The film focuses on Norman Babcock (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee), an kind, soft-spoken boy who is picked on by the bullies at school and who feels ostracized from the rest of his classmates.  You know, like most kids are.  However, there's a very special reason that Norman gets tormented at school.  He made the mistake at a young age of telling people about his gift.  He can see ghosts.  All of the spirits that have unfinished business on Earth.  He sees them all.  His usual walk to school involves conversations with dead mobsters, soldiers and pilots.  It also includes the occasional play time with the local roadkill animals.  Of course, none of Norman's neighbors see any of them, so he just looks seriously crazy.

Speaking of seriously crazy, Norman has an uncle (John Goodman) who his parents don't want around him and the rest of the town knows as the dirty old hobo that lives near the cemetery.  Uncle Penderghast confronts Norman with a story about a 300 year-old witches curse and the raising of the dead.  Of course, only Norman can keep it from happening and, of course, he fails, leading to all kinds of zombie-themed shenanigans.  Unwillingly accompanying him on his adventure are his materialistic sister (Anna Kendrick), his arch-nemesis/bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), his persistent friend (Tucker Albrizzi) and his friend's lunkhead jock brother (Casey Affleck).

The biggest themes of "ParaNorman" involve forgiveness, acceptance, empathy and individual responsibility, all of which are terrific alternatives to the average and stereotypical themes of animated features.  The screenplay, written by director Chris Butler, takes these themes and expertly weaves them into a story filled with humor and charm.  The animation is ugly at times, stunningly beautiful at others and always reflective of the needs of the script.

So, "ParaNorman" is equal parts fun and scary and it's a great way to beat the heat of the end of summer (although why it's being released in August and not in October is a bit of a puzzlement).  However, there are enough questionable elements including violence and occasional adult humor to call the film's PG rating into question.  I really think that if this movie had been released as a life-action film, it easily would've been PG-13, so if you're thinking about this movie for your younger children, think twice.  Let's put it this way:  If "Coraline" was appropriate for your kids, this one will be too.  If not, steer clear.

Overall grade: B+

Movie Review: The Bourne Legacy

Movie Review:  The Bourne Legacy / Rated PG-13 / Universal Pictures / 135 min. / Dir. Tony Gilroy

After the huge success of 2007's trilogy capper, "The Bourne Ultimatum", Universal Pictures understandably wanted another chapter in the Robert Ludlum-based franchise.  However, Paul Greengrass who had directed the 2nd and 3rd films with a shaky-cam real-world intensity felt that "Ultimatum" wrapped things up nicely and wanted to move on.  Matt Damon, who gave super-spy Jason Bourne a terrific fierceness combined with a surprisingly warm likability, was very clear that he wouldn't return to the franchise without Greengrass, so Universal decided to move on without Damon.  In fact, they decided to make a Bourne movie without Bourne, which seemed like a bit of a misstep at first.  It's sort of like making a James Bond movie sans James Bond or a Batman without Batman.

However, they made a smart choice in turning the directing reins over to Tony Gilroy, a man who has shown he can capably handle thrillers or different styles, be it political ("Michael Clayton") or comic ("Duplicity"), but also has a connection with the franchise as writer of the first three films.  

Of course, Universal has dropped the dreaded "r" word in describing "The Bourne Legacy", but it's really not a reboot, which, in my mind involves taking a franchise back to step one, usually without a connection to the original franchise (with J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" being one of the unusual reboots that actually fits into the mythology of the original).  No, "Legacy" is more of a sequel....or maybe a sidequel, in that it takes place at the same time as "Ultimatum" (needless to say, seeing the first three Bourne films is somewhat necessary to understand what's going on in the new movie.

You see, while Jason Bourne was fighting to stay alive while a mysterious government organization used all of their resources to kill him, another mysterious government organization was apparently worried that the highly publicized manhunt for Bourne might shed a negative light on their similarly morally ambiguous program.  So, the program head, retired Air Force Col. Eric Byer (Edward Norton) decides to scrap the program before the details can come to light.  Of course, scrapping the program for these mysterious government organizations means killing everyone who ISN'T in charge of it, but knows about it, so Col. Byer decides to order the termination of not only all his agents, but the scientists involved in the enhancing both physically and mentally of said agents.  Without giving anything away, I'll say that most of the movie is spent with people in dark rooms frantically trying to find one particular agent (Jeremy Renner) and one particular scientist (Rachel Weisz) who have joined forces in their fight for survival.

"The Bourne Legacy" is quite a nice continuation of the Bourne franchise, although the absence of Damon is felt throughout.  I read recently that Gilroy is hoping that in the future he can convince Damon to rejoin the franchise and combine with Renner in their fight to take down the cowardly men in the dark rooms trying to kill them.   THAT is a movie I would love to see, because I really like Damon and I really like Renner.  Both of them are natural leading men who take on both the emotional aspects of their character and the physical demands of the stunt work with a seamless ease.

The screenplay for "Legacy" feels a little more "connect the dots" than the first three Bourne films (it's telling that it's the first one that has no connection to the Ludlum novels).  As such, the movie stalls a bit when it puts the focus on Norton and his nefarious team of agent hunters.  There were two or three too many scenes of them shouting orders like "Get me every video surveillance from every airport in the city!" or  "Contact the Department of Transportation and get me every shots from every traffic camera in the last hour!"   Also, the first Bourne movies had at least a few people in the government that thought that maybe blindly ordering the death of someone isn't really a good thing.  There was always someone trying to understand what Bourne was doing and why while they were hunting him.  Here, they all know that Renner's character is completely innocent.  They don't care.  It's hard to relate to any of these characters when what they're doing is unquestionably morally reprehensible.

 However, whenever the movie focuses on Renner and Weisz, the movie is stellar and contains all of the spy-movie thrills of the previous installments.   Plus, there's a real chemistry between the two, especially as the story reveals more about their personal pasts.  I'm excited to see where future films will take these two very likable characters.

Overall grade:  B+, not quite as good as the 2nd and 3rd Bourne films, but a very nice continuation of the franchise and a great promise of where Gilroy could be taking things.  Well worth your time and money.

Movie Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"/PG-13/Warner Bros./164 min./Dir. by Christopher Nolan

(Note: I have decided, after considerable thought, to write this review strictly as a critique of the film and not as a commentary about its association with the horrific events in Colorado.  While that tragedy will, unfortunately, forever be associated with this film, it should not define the way the film is seen.  My prayers, as have been yours, are with those dealing with the aftermath of those events.)

In 1997, director Joel Schumacher did the seemingly impossible....he killed Batman.  Not the character, but the franchise.  With the ridiculously campy "Batman and Robin", complete with armor nipples and an endless supply of ice related puns, Schumacher took one of the most profitable film series in motion picture history and (forgive me for this) gave it the deep freeze.  "B&R" isn't really a "so bad it's good" movie, it's just bad.  The acting, the set designs, the costumes, the music, the direction, every creative gene of the movie is vapid and insulting.  It is also the first film I've ever walked out of in the theater because of the film's stupidity.  I saw it later on home video and realized that my initial feelings were far from harsh.... the movie is really horrible.

However, considering the amount of money the Caped Crusader made for Warner Bros., it was only a matter of time before they tried to resurrect him on the big screen.  Hiring auteur Christopher Nolan for the job is one of the smartest decisions ever made in film history.  Joining forces with screenwriter David S. Goyer (Nolan clearly brings out the best in Goyer, as the "Dark Knight" trilogy is easily the best thing with which his name has been associated), Nolan not only set out to put his stamp on the series, but he set out to redefine the the boundaries of what a superhero film could be.

Where Tim Burton's Gotham was a clearly matte-painted take on the film "Metropolis", and Schumacher's was a day-glo colored, 24-hour rave party, Nolan made it a real city.  It's an amalgam of Chicago and New York, where the real villains are rarely the ones in costume.  

Given Nolan's new take on the tone and interpretation of the material, it was very wise to make it a pure reboot and start with a new origin story.  "Batman Begins" did a wonderful job setting up the situations, emotions, and motivations that led to the existence of the Batman.  However, "The Dark Knight" raised the realism and the stakes.  Lead by the iconic performance by Heath Ledger as The Joker, TDK was surprisingly dramatic and somber for a superhero movie, and that's because, at its heart, it wasn't one.  It was a gritty crime thriller, with far more in common with "The Departed" than with "Spider-Man".

Which, of course, brings us to "The Dark Knight Rises."  (Warning: There are spoilers for the first two Nolan/Dark Knight movies and light plot-based spoilers for "TDKR" ahead)  It's been eight years since Batman took the blame for the grief-driven murders committed by Harvey Dent, and Gotham has made Dent the martyr and the symbol of good in the city.  The "Dent Act", which was passed shortly after his death, has successfully rid the city of organized crime.  Gotham doesn't seem to need Batman anymore, which suits Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) just fine.  After the events surrounding The Joker and Dent, his body is crippled and his spirit still mourns for the life he could've had with his fallen love, Rachel.

However, underneath the city in the sewer systems, a new threat to the city is building.  Rookie cop, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is slowly piecing together connections to smaller crimes that could be signs of something bigger brewing.  While the Chief of Police (Matthew Modine) thinks he's just a hot-headed kid, Comissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) also is concerned about what may be coming.

It turns out that what's coming is Bane (Tom Hardy), a ruthless brick-wall of a villain who seems to be leading a social and economic revolution against the elite of the city, but whose end game is far more insidious.  Also added to the mix, for reasons that are unclear at first, is the slinky cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway).  As Bruce begins to investigate the brutal Bane and the mysterious Kyle, it becomes all the more apparent that the Bat has to come out of retirement, whether or not Wayne feels equal to the task.

That's a brief rundown of what's going on, but it can't begin to describe the twists and turns in the plot.  Once again, Nolan provides a script that is rich in atmosphere, emotion, and character.  Almost every character, no matter how seemingly unimportant, fits into the grand design of things.  The sole exception is Kyle's sidekick, Holly (Juno Temple), who could've easily been written out of the script and her absence would not have been noticed in the least.  Otherwise, Nolan has given every character a key role in the development of the plot.

The acting is superb across the board.  As the tortured Wayne, Bale gets to show so much more of his terrific acting chops as Wayne gets broken and reborn.  He wears the grief and anger from the events of the last film with such conviction that he truly rises above the often vanilla-bland characterization of Wayne in past interpretations of the character.  

Everyone knows that a superhero movie is only as good as its villain and Bane is a brutish success.  Part WWF wrestler, part Darth Vader, Hardy portrays Bane with a calm and ominous singularity of purpose.  A chill enters the theater whenever he appears.  

However, for me, the stand out performance was Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (she's never referred to as Catwoman in the film, although one newspaper headline does refer to her as "The Cat").  Near the beginning of the film, she seems to be playing her standard character....sweet, shy, and a little clumsy, but there is a moment early on when you see that facade drop and her cunning, street-wise seductress leaks through and from that moment on, Hathaway owns every scene she's in.  Riding the line of hero and villain throughout the movie, she is fantastic and the perfect person for the job.

Production values are pretty amazing throughout.  Nolan's go-to guy for cinematogrophy, Wally Pfister, brings the grit of the city to vibrant life and Hans Zimmer's musical score does a terrific job combining the darkness of the previous installments with the hopeful atmosphere required for this trilogy finale.  As would be expected, the special effects are jaw-dropping with n'er a seam to be seen.

There are two questions one may have about "The Dark Knight Rises":  Is it as good as "The Dark Knight?" and Is it as good as "The Avengers."  To answer the first, absolutely.  While it doesn't have a performance as surprising or buzz-worthy as Ledger's in "TDK", it also isn't dependent on one performance.  It couldn't have been a better or more fitting ending for the series.

Secondly, and I know I might get some flack for this, but I really think that "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises" are in the same league as far as quality.  However, comparing them is really unfair because they are really different genres.  "The Avengers" is a special-effects extravaganza, a wildly entertaining action-comedy.  "The Dark Knight Rises" is a crime drama/political thriller, with a palpable sense of dread and a potent sense of humor.  I supposed if pushed to it, I'd say "TDKR" is the better movie, but "The Avengers" is the one that'll get the more play on my blu-ray player, however, both are a great time at the movies.

In the end, I think my favorite thing about this film and the entire "Dark Knight" trilogy, is the idea of faith in the common man.  Nolan recently stated that he had developed elements of the entire trilogy around one line from the first film, spoken by Bruce Wayne's father:  "Why do we fall, Bruce?  To learn how to get back up."  I think this quote not only applies to Wayne's character, but to the entire populace of Gotham.  Nolan has shown many instances of a city willing to work together to fight the evils that threaten it and that is a hopeful and inspiring thing to see in film, especially a "superhero" film.  The idea of being protected by a hero is nice, but the idea of being your own hero is empowering and that is the idea I believe this film trilogy endorses.  It's a terrific ending to one of the greatest film trilogies of all time.

Final Grade: A

Movie Review: "Ice Age: Continental Drift" / Rated PG / 20th Century Fox / Dir. by Steve Martino and Mike Thurmeier / 94 min.

Is there any enduring franchise in motion picture history more inexplicably successful than the "Ice Age" films?  I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're consistently, almost aggressively average.  Every plot, every character arc, almost every joke has been farmed out from other more creative movies.  You know what they remind me of?  Back in the 70's and 80's, Warner Bros. tried to find a way to re-market the old Looney Tunes shorts by making "new" Bugs Bunny movies, which were actually just the classic old shorts connected by new, more poorly animated filler material.  Films like "The Looney, Looney, Looney Bugs Bunny Movie" and "1001 Rabbit Tales" rigged up a serviceable plot that could somehow explain how all of these independently created shorts could work in a cohesive story.  In watching these movies, the viewer wades through the new stuff to get to the meat, which is the old Looney Tunes shorts.

In the case of the "Ice Age" movies, the good stuff usually involves Scrat, the pine cone obsessed rodent whose dogged pursuit of his desire leaves the world crumbling in his wake.  The filler material (which makes up the bulk of the movies) involves the unusual herd created in the first film: Manny, the grumpy, yet lovable mammoth (Ray Romano, basically playing himself), Diego, the grumpy, yet lovable sabertooth tiger (Denis Leary, also basically playing himself), and Sid, the stupid, yet lovable sloth (John Leguizamo, hopefully not playing himself).  These three have the same character arc in each movie.  The two grumps learn to be softer and more understanding and the dopey one saves the day with his fearless loyalty, gaining the begrudging respect of the other two.  It's been the same basic outline for each and every one of the movies.  Granted, they've added more characters to try and disguise the stale plots.  Manny has gained a wife (Queen Latifah) and a daughter (Keke Palmer), as well as a couple of possum brothers-in-law (Seann William Scott and Josh Peck), which have given him the opportunity to demonstrate paternal grumpiness through all the stages of family, from worrying about his pregnant wife to battling with his belligerent teenage daughter, but the movies never deal with these issues on a level higher than a "Full House"-style sitcom.

This time, the hilarious Scrat accidentally falls to the center of the Earth and chases a pinecone around on the Earth's core, which leads to the destruction of the central land mass and the creation of the continents (the scientific logic is infallible, no?)  As a result, the central three characters get separated from the rest of their herd and must find their way back, but not before encountering a group of prehistoric pirates, led by the villainous Captain Gutt (voiced extremely well by Peter Dinklage).  This gives us an antagonist (I mean one other than the shifting land masses) and also gives the ever crotchety Diego a love interest in the form of a sabertooth pirate named Shirah (Jennifer Lopez).  Will everyone end up safe and in love?  Of course.  Will they learn that family is important?  Yep.  Will they learn that it's always best to be yourself? (the most overplayed moral in all of modern family entertainment)  Most indubitably.

As I said before, the plot for the "Ice Age" films feel secondary.  The morals, the heart, the action....it all feels merely like a Scrat delivery system.  These are the sequences when the movies come to life.  Unfortunately, if you've seen the previews for this movie, you've seen almost 3/4ths of the Scrat segments.  Seriously.  The first teaser trailer for "Continental Drift" was all of the first three Scrat segments stitched together, which gives the movie an even more "been there, seen that" feel.

Granted, not everything in the movie feels entirely played out.  The animation is beautiful.  I recently saw the first "Ice Age" and the improvement in animation quality from film to film has been truly impressive.  There are a few laugh-out-loud and honestly creative segments, including a bit involving prehistoric sirens and some of the personality quirks of the band of pirates.  Also, the musical score by the always fantastic John Powell, is exciting and involving.

Yes, these aren't bad movies.  They're merely adequate.  So the real question is, how did we get to the point that 20th Century Fox felt it necessary to make four of them?  The answer, my friends, is found in three simple words:  Foreign....box....office.  You see, while each of the "Ice Age" movies have made roughly the same amount in the U.S.(between $176 and $196 million), they've grown in box-office in the world market in staggering amounts.  In fact, here's a little of nugget of info to let sink in:  "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" (a.k.a. Ice Age 3) is the highest grossing animated film of ALL TIME overseas.  It's a fact.  Bigger than "Shrek", bigger than "Toy Story", bigger than "The Lion King".  So, as long as the foreign market goes insane for the franchise, they'll keep cranking out harmless, yet uninspired movies.

Oh, by the way, the best thing about the movie happens before the opening credits.  There's a new "Simpsons" short film entitled "The Longest Daycare" that appears before "Ice Age".  It's quite funny, with a lot of jokes that only adults will get (especially because they are written and they zip past the audience quickly), but the thing that surprised me about it was the poignancy in which it ended.  The last few moments had the warmth of some of the Pixar shorts, which was the last thing I was expecting from Groening and Co. It was really quite delightful.

So, the final word is this.  If you've seen an "Ice Age" movie, you know exactly what you're getting.  If you love or even like them, you'll probably feel the same about this one.  If you didn't care for them, but want something good and entertaining for the family, go see "Brave" or "Madagascar 3".  Both of these films are considerably better than "Continental Drift".  However, if you do decide to see the latest adventure of Manny and friends, be sure to get there in time to see Maggie Simpson in her charming (and, by the way, wordless) short.

Final grade: C

Movie Review:  "The Amazing Spider-Man"/Rated PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence)/Dir. by Marc Webb/136 min.

Let us, for a moment, imagine a parallel universe.  One in which Sam Raimi passed on directing "Spider-Man" and Tobey Maguire never donned the red and blue tights.  In this universe, the web-slinger movie stayed in the same development wasteland currently occupied by the long-in-development Wonder Woman and Flash movies.  However, in 2010, a Spidey movie finally got green-lit and the reins of the potential franchise were handed to a young independent director named Marc Webb.  Previously best known for the anti-romantic comedy "(500) Days of Summer", Webb seems an unusual, but canny choice (not only will the movie focus on the relationships, but his last name is Webb for heaven's sake!).  In this parallel universe, the film called "The Amazing Spider-Man" that is currently in theaters would be universally recognized as a well paced, naturally acted, inventively directed, humanistic, and entertaining summer popcorn movie, and rightfully take its place among the best of the comic-book movies.

However, we don't live in that universe.  Raimi's "Spider-Man" not only existed, but it thrived.  Even it's weakest entry, the overstuffed "Spider-Man 3" received mostly positive reviews and made over $890 million dollars worldwide.  Therefore, the question on most people's minds isn't "Is it good?", it's "Is it necessary?", and unfortunately, the answer is no.   I'll get more to the question of quality later, but for a moment, let me address the question of necessity.  Unlike the recent successful reboots of "Batman", "Star Trek", and "James Bond", this movie isn't saving the franchise from artistic stagnancy or disappointing box-office returns.  It's here to save skittish movie executives from the only enemy they could not destroy themselves:  copyright law.

Allow me to explain.  Sony pictures was a little gun-shy about bringing Raimi back for a "Spider-Man 4" after his mishandling of the Venom story line in the 3rd Spidey movie (one of the biggest flaws in an imperfect, but still entertaining movie.)  However, they still asked Raimi to come up with a treatment for a 4th movie involving Dr. Curt Connors (played in the original trilogy by outstanding character actor Dylan Baker) and his transformation to the villainous "Lizard".  Apparently, the studio wasn't thrilled with his ideas and Raimi left the franchise and Tobey Maguire decided to leave with him.  However, Sony needed to get a new Spider-Man in theaters by 2012 or, according to their original agreement with Marvel Studios, they would lose the movie rights to the character, something that Marvel has been chomping at the bit to happen, because that means the teenage web-slinger could then slip into the Marvel Movie Universe.  (I have to admit that a Spidey-centric "Avengers" movie makes my inner geek get a little drooly)

However, rather than just recast and continue with the franchise, Sony pictures got reboot fever thanks to the enormous success of "The Dark Knight".  Unfortunately, rebooting the Spider-Man franchise feels a little like using a defibrillator to resuscitate a perfectly healthy person.

For the first hour of "The Amazing Spider-Man", the sense of deja vu hovering over the film is inescapable.  (WARNING:  from here on out, there are minor spoilers)  High school misfit - check.  Cute, seemingly unattainable girl - check.  Radioactive spider bite - check.  Fun discovery of new powers - check.  Empowering conflict with school bully - check.  Death of Uncle Ben that inspires Peter to use his powers to help people - check.  It's all done in an interesting and emotionally resonant way, but the plot points during this section feel more like a connect the dots version of the original, in spite of the noblest efforts of all involved (among which include an attempt to cloud the disappearance and death of Peter's parents in mystery and intrigue).

Thankfully, once we get passed all of that exposition, the movie begins to transform into a more unique and surprising entertainment.  Webb's previous experience with relationship-focused indie films serves him well as the relationship between Peter (a very likable Andrew Garfield) and the genius in knee-high socks, Gwen Stacy (the terrific Emma Stone) feels much more natural than the central relationship in the original.  Plus, it doesn't hurt that Garfield and Stone have more chemistry than did Maguire and Kirstin Dunst.  

The movie mentions the comic-book's biggest baddie, Norman Osborn, but the central antagonist here is the aforementioned Dr. Curt Connors, now played with great empathy by Rhys Ifans.  Connors is a biochemist studying the possibilities of cross-species mutation to cure human maladies, including his missing right arm.  When Peter finds a key algorithm among his fathers papers and shares it with Dr. Connors, the good doctor begins to combine human and lizard DNA in an effort to replicate the regenerative abilities of the cold-blooded.  As is prone to happen when movie scientists start tinkering with genetics, things go awry.

Add to this conflict the fact that Peter's new girlfriend's father is the chief of police (Denis Leary) who is desperately trying to find and apprehend the vigilante currently attacking criminals in a red and blue unitard and restraining them with an odd, web-like netting.  This makes the traditional boyfriend/girl's dad tension even more palpable and any resolution of that tension offered more gratifying.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" does one thing the original Spider-Man never did.  It allows almost every main character an opportunity to be heroic, even the villains.  Some of the most moving sacrifices and daring deeds are done by regular, ordinary, non-tights-wearing people.  It reminded me a bit of the ferry scene in "The Dark Knight."  It's nice to see a film buck Hollywood's current pessimism about human nature and give even more selfish and adversarial characters the chance to show their true colors.

Lest you think this movie is all romance and commentaries on the nature of man, "The Amazing Spider-Man" has some pretty eye-popping action sequences.  The action is fact-paced and, at times, surprising (especially in 3D), but also coherent and character-motivated, which means they're not merely fun to watch, but they propel the plot and the relationships contained therein.

So, the final word is that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an entertaining and thoughtful popcorn movie, but it's still just another Spidey origin movie.  While I enjoyed it, I'm more looking forward to where Webb takes the series now that all the messy and unnecessary rebooting it done.

Grade: B

Addendum:  In regards to the events leading to the demise of a "Spider-Man 4", I have recently read information that slightly conflicts with what I had previously read.  I have read that Columbia pictures was actually keen to move on with Raimi, however, he wasn't pleased with the script and that led to the split.  However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" was, by all accounts, rushed into production in order to beat the copyright deadline.

 Movie Review: "Brave"/Disney-Pixar/100 min./Rated PG

When Disney bought Pixar Animation Studios in January of 2006 for a staggering $7.4 billion, much was made about the potential Disney-fication of Pixar's unique storytelling style. Those concerns were echoed in the summer of that year when "Cars" was released to huge profits and the worst critical response to any Pixar film to that point.  Of course, Pixar blew the pundits out of the water with their next string of films. "Ratatouille", "WALL-E", "Up" and "Toy Story 3" were each the most critically acclaimed film of their year and are among the most acclaimed movies of all-time. In fact, their rapturous reception by critics was one of the reasons that the Motion Picture Academy expanded the number of Best Picture nominees to ten (along with the continued Academy neglect of other pop hits like "The Dark Knight").

Last year things got iffy for Pixar with the release of "Cars 2". I honestly think that "Cars 2" is an entertaining movie, but the single element that it is most lacking is passion. Every other Pixar film is born out of a truly unique idea, spurred on by the passion of the filmmaker. "Cars 2" genuinely seems born out of corporate greed and, while I think Pixar did an admirable job of trying to make something out of it, it still ranks as their weakest film, creatively and commercially (not counting the billions it made from toys).

So, now Pixar releases "Brave", their first non-sequel in three years. It's also their first film directed by a woman (story-writer and co-director Brenda Chapman) and featuring a female central protagonist, which is all the better for the company. In fact, making a big budget computer-animated film that is a tribute to the mother/daughter relationship is borderline revolutionary in this boy-centric art form and very much in keeping with Pixar's M.O. They're risk takers. They're the one's that made a worldwide box-office smash out of a story about a rat obsessed with French cooking for heaven's sake! It only makes sense that they would see the need for this kind of a story. As long of the movie sticks to the family relationships, "Brave" is stellar.

It starts off startlingly well, with scenes that take the traditional fairy-tale elements of the story and infuse them with trademark Pixarian humor, rhythm and heart. It doesn't feel like any Princess movie you've ever seen before. The central protagonist, Merida (voice of Kelly McDonald), is a head-strong teenager who's never happier than when she can ride through the woods on her loyal horse, firing arrows into pre-placed targets on her way. Her "non-feminine" interests confuse and worry her mother (voiced by Emma Thompson), who sees it as her job to raise the perfect Princess and is thwarted at every turn by her wild-haired daughter. (Merida's hair is not only symbolic of her wild nature, but it is almost a character in itself) I want to leave the plot elements unspoiled, but this is a fairy tale, so it's not spoiler-y to say that there's a magic spell and a frantic race to set things right, but the plot is, as Roger Ebert once said, the percussion, not the melody. The plot is a means to telling the story, but point of the story is held in the relationship between Merida and her mother. Both are convinced that they could explain their view point if the other person would just listen, unfortunately, they're both too focused on that to ever listen to each other. That is until the situations force them to listen.

As I mentioned previously, when the focus is on this relationship, "Brave" is delightful. It's that central relationship that inspired Chapman when she wrote the story. However, part of the way into the production of "Brave", Chapman was replaced as director (she's credited as co-director on the final film) by Mark Andrews. Unlike other director replacements in Pixar's films (it's a more common occurrence than you'd think), this one seemed to be for commercial, rather than creative reasons. There have been reports that Andrews was brought in to make it more appealing to boys and to beef up the comedy. Unfortunately, when the humor goes crude and/or unoriginal, the magic of the central relationship is lost. For me, it's these moments that keep it from being counted among Pixar's best films, although it's a wonderful step up from the soulless, though entertaining, "Cars 2".

The animation in "Brave" is nothing short of amazing. The lushness of the Scottish highlands, the richness of the character animation, the wild beauty of Merida's aforementioned mane, it's all wonderful eye-candy. The musical score by Patrick Doyle has some lovely Scottish-themed flourishes and the voice-over work is universally excellent (Billy Connolly as King Fergus does a particularly hilarious impersonation of his teenage daughter)

 All told, "Brave" is definitely worth the price of admission and is a movie that children will love. It's wonderful to have a big-budget film sincerely address the tender and deep emotions associated with the mother/daughter relationship, I just wish the screenwriters and filmmakers would have had the courage to let that relationship inform all of the humor without letting more "hip" jabs a humor sneak in to the texture.

By the way, if you have very young children, be aware that there are moments of intense animal attacks, comparable to the Barracuda attack in "Finding Nemo". Plus, the crude moments of humor that I mentioned include some animated backsides played up for laughs and a rather surprising close up of a buxom woman's chest. These moments are short and certainly not telling of the general tone of the movie, but you should know they're there.

Also, get to the theater on time because the animated short, "La Luna", which shows before "Brave" is quite simply one of the most beautiful pieces of animation ever made. It's warm, surprising, creative and moving. In other words, it's vintage Pixar.

Overall grade for "Brave" - B+ / for "La Luna" - A+

Preview of Summer 2012....one month into it.

It’s been way too long since I’ve written in this blog, especially considering the fact that not only has the summer movie season been going for a full month, but it also contained the biggest summer movie OF ALL TIME (well, not if you adjust for inflation, then it’s just the 11th biggest summer movie of all time, but that’s still pretty darn big!) Of course, a large part of the reason for this delay is my day job(s). In the last six months I’ve conducted or performed in 14 different concerts, written and directed a musical and been in charge of several after-school hours student council activities at the school, in addition to my regular teaching and private studio schedule, so it’s been a bit busy. However, on this wonderfully beautiful Sunday afternoon, I’m going to take a breath and look forward to a somewhat less hectic summer schedule. Not that I haven’t seen any movies. I haven’t seen as many as I’d like (curse the fact that I’m not paid as a film critic), but I’ve seen the important ones. Interestingly, there are fewer movies that I’m looking forward to this summer. While there’s usually at least one film a week during the season that I’m at least moderately interested in, this year’s schedule looks a little more barren. However, the ones that look good look REALLY good, so maybe that makes up for it. However, before I get into it, let’s look at what happened in the first month. Of course, the summer started gently with a small little art house film called “The Avengers”. This intimate little costume drama somehow defied the odds and made over 570 million dollars and counting, looking to end up north of 600 million and at number 3 on the list of all-time grossers (behind only “Titanic” and “Avatar”). All sarcasm aside, “The Avengers” was awesome. A movie that by all means could’ve been a huge disaster, but somehow became one of the most ridiculously entertaining movies of the last decade. I’ve seen it three times in the theater and it’s not enough. So…..much…..awesomeness! I love how wise Marvel Studios has been in choosing directors. Joss Whedon didn’t seem like a natural fit for “The Avengers” to me, but the motivations for hiring him were totally character based and it was all for the best. He is a master at juggling ensemble casts and giving them all equal importance, which was exactly what was needed for this movie. Plus, he didn’t skimp on the special effects/action coolness. Also, it was surprisingly funny. Also, The Hulk was perfect. Also, I loved it. (grade: A) I missed the big movies of the next couple of weeks of the summer. Still haven’t seen “Dark Shadows” or “Battleship”, which is a good or a bad thing depending on who’s going the critiquing. I’ve had friends that had seen both and have heard that they are both either fun or horrible. I’ll have to check it out myself. I did see “Men in Black 3” and enjoyed it. There was an odd, made-for-video vibe about it, but it was humorous and surprisingly poignant in the end, even if the plot was a bit hole-ridden. Plus, it’s always nice to see Will Smith back on the big screen. Also, Josh Brolin is amazing as a younger version of Agent K. (grade: B-) “Snow White and the Huntsman” has two things about it that warrant a high recommendation: the visuals and Charlize Theron. This movie has some of the most stunning visuals I’ve ever seen in a film and I really do look forward to seeing what happens with director Rupert Sanders’ career. The enchant forest, the aerial views of the dark forest, the warriors made of shards of metal….there are so many scenes and individual shots that belong hung in an art museum. This visual art is framing a pretty average fantasy story with most of the actors doing the best they can with the stilted dialogue, however Theron rises above the dialogue to create a villain simultaneously terrifying, empathetic and attractive, not an easy feat. It was also nice to see Kristen Stewart in a non-“Twilight” related role. I thought she acquitted herself quite nicely. (grade: B-) The first sleeper hit of the summer is “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”, in which several great British actors and actresses of a certain age do their take on “Eat, Pray, Love”, however, I liked “Hotel” a lot more than Julia Roberts ode to self-indulgence disguised as self-discovery. For one, Maggie Smith and Judi Dench are in it, which instantly lifts any movie to a higher level of class. Secondly, there are actually some likeable characters and good messages throughout. The overall message of the film is found in a catchphrase that is uttered throughout: “It will be alright in the end, so if it’s not alright, it’s not the end yet.” A thought that would have been equally at home among Forrest Gump’s cavalcade of sentimentality, but pleasant nonetheless. (grade: B) Lastly, “Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted”. This installment of the successful animated franchise about zoo animals trying to find their way back to Central Park is by far the riskiest and, as a result, the most entertaining. The animals leave Africa to find their monkey and penguin friends in Monte Carlo and head back to the good ole’ U.S. of A. However, their path is thwarted by a French animal control officer expertly voiced by Frances McDormand. Not only is this woman fearless and a bit feral, but she can heal broken limbs merely by singing “Non Je Ne Regrette Rien”. I’d like to see anyone on “Grey’s Anatomy” pull off that one. The animals escape her by joining a European circus and turning it into a Cirque du Soleil-style surreal extravaganza and it’s in that plot point that the movie becomes something a little more special than the other “Madagascar” movies. The movie becomes a phantasmagoria of absurdist humor and surreal imagery, which is actually best viewed in 3d. I have never seen a film use the 3d technology to such successful comic effect. In every chase scene, every action sequence, every circus-related scene, there is no opportunity to throw stuff at the audience left unturned, most of the time eliciting giggles of surprise from the audience. “Madagascar 3” is far from a perfect movie, but it’s a pretty darn funny one and would make a very satisfying end to the franchise if the filmmakers decide to end it here. (grade: B+) As for the rest of the summer, it’s sort of like a desert with a few very real oasis to bask in. In a couple of weeks, we get the first non-sequel Pixar film since 2009’s “Up” with “Brave”. It also marks the first time Pixar has made a female character the central protagonist of a film and the first time they’ve had a female director (Brenda Chapman, who directed “Prince of Egypt” for DreamWorks receives co-director credit on “Brave”). While it doesn’t look like it will have the startling originality of previous Pixar films, “Brave” looks like a solidly entertaining and beautifully rendered story swimming in Scottish mythology. I can’t wait. The July 4th holiday marks the release of a movie that I have very mixed feelings about, “The Amazing Spider-Man”. The trailers look like the filmmakers have very thoughtfully crafted, interesting and detailed origin story for the popular comic book character, it’s just that it was only ten years ago that we HAD a thoughtfully crafted, interesting and detailed origin story for this particular comic book character, and, unlike the “Batman” franchise rebooting with “Batman Begins”, the last “Spider-Man” movie wasn’t a flop financially or critically. (fanboys like to decry “Spider-Man 3” and, while it is the weakest of the series, it’s nowhere near the disaster some like to say it was) However, Sony Pictures had to rush a movie into production in order to hold on to the rights to Spider-Man, which would’ve reverted back to Marvel Studios if Sony didn’t have a film ready by 2012, and since they couldn’t agree with Sam Raimi on a direction for a “Spider-Man 4”, they decided to reboot the whole thing. Sony made and interesting choice in director with Marc Webb, a filmmaker whose previously best-known movie was the 2009 indie sleeper hit “(500) Days of Summer”. Plus, the cast is great. The question isn’t if a good Spidey reboot could be made, but SHOULD it have been made. I guess we’ll find out July 3rd. And, of course, there’s “The Dark Knight Rises”, the movie that finishes Christopher Nolan’s planned Dark Knight trilogy. The commercials have hit all the right notes and I personally every bit of faith in Nolan’s talents, so there’s no reason to believe this will be anything less than great. It will also make an interesting counter-point to the candy-colored heroes of “The Avengers”. While I’m pretty sure “The Avengers” will end up with more repeated viewings by me, “The Dark Knight Rises” will probably be the one recognized come award season. In August, there’s “The Bourne Legacy”, not a reboot, but a continuation of the Treadstone plot line sans Jason Bourne. It looks pretty good and Jeremy Renner has already shown he can do the action hero thing in “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” and “The Avengers”, so I’m looking forward to it. Also in August comes “ParaNorman”, a stop-motion animated film from Portland’s own Laika studios (the guys who made “Coraline”). I know some parents that are concerned about the number of darkly themed animated films being made, but personally I think they’re sort of a perfect way for kids to enjoy the spirit of Halloween without being subjected to the horror movies that litter the cable networks in October. Of course, this begs the question “Why is this movie about the dead-communicating, zombie-fighting middle-schooler going to be released in August instead of October”. The answer is probably in order to avoid Tim Burton’s stop-motion film “Frankenweenie”, a remake of a live action film he made while still working at Disney. Regardless of the release date, it should be a hoot. So, the summer movie season is upon us and, hopefully, I’ll have a little more time to keep you apprised of my thoughts on the movies. Enjoy and have a fun summer at the movies!