Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Movie Review

"Transformers: Dark of the Moon"/Dir. by Michael Bay/Paramount Pictures/Rated PG-13/157 min.

Michael Bay likes to blow stuff up real good. I know this is a bold statement about the man who directed "Bad Boys", "Armageddon" and the "Transformers" films, but I stand by it. He pays lip service to the idea of a "plot" and to "character", but really, they're nothing more than an explosive delivery system. In previous films, this sort of bothered me, especially in "Pearl Harbor", where he used one of the most tragic events in U.S. history as a means for his fetishistic love of all things destructive. One shouldn't be watching the attack on Hawaii and think "Wow, those explosions are cool!".

However, I thought the first "Transformers" movie was the perfect marriage of director and material. Go ahead Michael, make the giant alien robots blow stuff up. Fill the story to the brim with silly characters and silly plot contrivances because this is, after all, a movie based on a toy. (anytime you start a movie with the credit "in association with Hasbro productions", you know you're not looking at a future best picture candidate) Yes, "Transformers" was profoundly silly, but it was fun and gave the maestro of destruction a perfect canvas for his unique sensibilities.

Unfortunately, it also made him a fortune and gave him free reign to go crazy on the sequel, which amped up the action, but also amped up the "comedy" with wall to wall characterizations that made Jar-Jar Binks seems subtle and sophisticated by comparison.

So, the real question for "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is this: Is it better than the last one? The answer, thankfully, is yes. The annoying characters are still annoying, but there's less of them. The "funny" parts are still, for the most part, met with silence and the "serious" parts met with laughter. It's still WAAAAYYY to long, with a final battle that lasts for over and hour. Seriously. Over an hour. However, it's more of the guilty pleasure that the first one was, instead of just the guilt (minus the pleasure) of the second one.

This time, our protagonist, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) has graduated from an ivy league school, but is still having a hard time finding work. Fortunately, his new girlfriend (former Victoria Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) just got a great new job and is making enough for both of this. However, Sam feels that his past service to the country (you know, saving the world a couple of times) should have afforded him a better career path.

Meanwhile, bad things are happening in the world of robots in disguise. Several world events, including the original moon landing and the explosion at Chernobyl, are being revealed to be all Cybertron-y. It's up to all of the gang from the previous films to get together and figure it out before Earth becomes the blueprint for "The Matrix".

As I said, the plot is strictly incidental, although there are some nice twists as the true villains of the story are revealed. They're fairly obvious, but these twists show more cleverness than this series has heretofore shown as a standard. In the end, the central protagonist isn't Sam, or even Optimus Prime and his Autobot buddies. It's the mayhem.

I mentioned earlier that the final battle is over an hour long and while I believe it was a little bit of overkill, it's still a pretty stunning set of eye-candy. The previous films took a slightly more cartoonish approach to the ending set pieces, but this one has a bit of a "War of the Worlds" type vibe to it. The threat is surprisingly dark for this light an entertainment and it's doubly impressive in 3D. (word is that James Cameron himself gave Bay pointers on how to effectively use the format). Supposedly, this is the final film in a trilogy and I kind of hope it is because the sheer volume of havoc found in this battle would be unwise to try to top. As it is, I don't think I need to see a giant special-effects extravaganza for quite some time and for those of you who know my love for all things digital, you know that's saying something.

The bottom line is this. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is not a good film, but it is a great spectacle. It's less annoying that the 2nd film, although not quite as much fun as the 1st. However, if you liked either of those two, it's an easy recommendation.

Grade: B-

Cars 2: Review

"Cars 2"/Walt Disney Pictures-Pixar Animation Studios/Rated G/113 min./Dir. by John Lasseter and Brad Lewis

When I was a kid, my mother would always respond to the statement "My room is clean" with the same question: "Is it Paul clean or is it Mom clean". "Paul Clean" meant that on the surface, my room looked great. The bedspread was straight, the floor was uncluttered, the plethora of Star Wars toys were poised on shelves, looking like three dimensional art. However, if one looked beyond the surface (i.e. under the bed or in the closet), things might not look as nifty as they did before. "Mom Clean" meant that the room honestly didn't look that much different at first glance, but on closer inspection one could see cleaned windows, polished desks and chairs and spotless closets. There were times when she asked this question that I could proudly say, "Mom Clean!" At those times, I loved having mom go to my room and discover the work that had been done beneath the surface. However, if the answer was ever anything other than that, I would just hang my head and go back to work.

Recently, in the deluge of computer animated films, critics have asked a similar question when presented with the final product: "Is it DreamWorks good or is it Pixar good?". That question seems very insulting to DreamWorks, but it really shouldn't be. DreamWorks deals, for the most part, in surface entertainments and they're really quite good at it. However, when they give the world a "Kung Fu Panda" or a "How to Train Your Dragon", they're clearly making sure that there's more than just the surface entertainment. That's why those films have been labeled by many critics as "Pixar good".

Pixar is famously known for the mantra "story, story, story". John Lasseter, the founder of Pixar and current creative head of Pixar and Disney Animation, has stated this time and again and, as a result, they typically produce truly transcendent films. I use the word transcendent quite literally. The films transcend plot and technique to reveal layering and depth that renders audiences truly moved by the experience.

Of course, every family has a black sheep and Pixar's was "Cars", the 2006 film that had to settle for being "successful" as opposed to "one of the best animated films of all time", a moniker often placed on new Pixar films. "Cars" had always been the one Pixar film that was "DreamWorks Good". It was, on the surface, entertaining, funny and a lot of fun to look at, but underneath the surface there was no exciting sense of discovery. It was a non-transcendent comedy, a solid entertainment, but so much less than the character-masters at Pixar were capable of.

When it was announced that they were making a sequel to "Cars", my first response was "Of all your films, you're choosing to make a sequel to your least acclaimed film? Why not 'The Incredibles?!? That one's begging for a sequel!" Then I remembered that "Cars" had become the most successfully merchandised film in their canon and figured that Disney honchos pressured them to come up with a franchise. After seeing the film, I'm still pretty sure that money was the motivation behind it getting made.

"Cars 2" is a totally different genre than the first film. Where the original was a comedy teaching the value of an relaxed, old-fashioned lifestyle, this one is a spy thriller/comedy. Which means that instead of being lulled to sleep, certain adults in the audience may feel bombarded by noise and action.

The plot centers around a World Grand Prix race, in which Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is one of the favorites to win. Against his better judgement, Lightning decides to invite his best bud Mater the tow truck (Larry the Cable Guy) to come along and help in the pit crew. However, during the Tokyo leg of the race, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by the automotive equivalent of James Bond, a suave car named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), who in a nifty bit of creativity has a grill that looks like a smoothly manicured moustache. Of course, as in all mistaken identity spy movies, zaniness ensues, and I don't use that phrase sarcastically. The results of Mater getting thrown into the spy world are often quite funny.

There's an unlikely but appealing romance thrown in for Mater in the form of a female spy played by Emily Mortimer named Holly Shiftwell, a nice tribute to the Bond tradition of giving heroines silly, doubly-entendred names. Plus, there's a richly textured world created here that's really a kick to look at. This is a case of the 3-D really working, making the world come alive in a visually exciting way.


On the downside though, there's a ham-fisted message that makes the environmental aspects of "WALL-E" seem extremely subtle. It's not that I disagree with the message, but nobody likes getting beat over the head with a moral, even if it's a good one.

Also, at the end of the day, this is a "Cars" film. No matter how visually engaging or pun-fully funny it is, there's never any sense of concern or wonderment. Will Mater live and save the day? Of course he will. Will he and Lightning learn the true meaning of friendship....again? Yep. Will we be given something beyond the surface plot elements to ponder on the ride home? Unfortunately, no. This movie is "DreamWorks Good", which, again, isn't an insult, it's just disappointing from a studio that so consistently shows us it's capable of more.

Also, your enjoyment of this film will definitely hinge on two questions: Did you like the first one and do you like Mater, because this is absolutely his movie. If the answer to either of those questions is no, then tread with caution. (by the way, my personal answers to those questions are: yes, like, but not love. and absolutely, Mater is the "simple-isn't-stupid" heart of the franchise)

As a teacher, I know the disappointment when an extremely talented and capable student turns in an assignment well below their ability level. Had any other student turned it in, you might give it an "A-" or a "B+", but for this student, those grades wouldn't accurately represent what they CAN do. Knowing what Pixar is capable of, "DreamWorks good" simply isn't good enough. It's delightful that DreamWorks is showing a desire to become more "Pixar Good", but Pixar should never be anything less. However, if you're just looking for a light and forgettable family film, this one can fit the bill.

Grade: B

p.s. There are very bright moments before the movie even starts with an awesome preview for Pixar's next original movie, the Scottish adventure, "Brave" and a delightful new short with the "Toy Story" characters. Don't miss them.

School's out! Bring on the summer movies!!!

Well, the last note has been sung and the last paper turned in. The 2010-2011 school year is done, which means I can spend some of my free time reviewing movies. Unfortunately, the school year ended about a month and a half after the summer movie season began which means this first entry is all about playing catch up. Let's get to it!!!

"Thor"/Paramount Pictures/Dir. by Kenneth Brannagh/Rated PG-13/115 min.

Of all the Marvel comic characters, this is the one that's always left me a little bewildered because it's the one that moves the furthest from the "real world" sensibilities of most of the others. Stan Lee prides himself on creating fantastic characters that are rooted in human problems and frailties, so adding the Norse God of Thunder to the Marvel canon of superheroes feels a little....odd. However, the movie does a terrific job of not only explaining how the mythological Thor fits into the Marvel universe, but of making him feel, for lack of a better word, human. I attribute this to the writers, the director and Chris Hemsworth, the soon-to-be star playing the titular lightning slinger. Two of the writers credited with writing the screenplay (Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz) are also responsible for the summer's other awesome superhero saga "X-Men: First Class" (more on that later) and they do a terrific job of grounding the immortal characters with human motivations and frailties. This not only serves to make them more empathetic, but it also makes the relations that Thor forges with the human world more understandable. Director Kenneth Brannagh, who has never directed this type of film before injects the film with the grand Shakespearean angst that's defined his career and he proves to be an inspired choice for bringing this movie to life.

Best of all is Hemsworth, who energizes the whole movie with the innate likability that he brought to his brief moments in 2009's "Star Trek". He effortlessly makes the audience want to root for this character and it will be a treat to see him interact with the other Marvel characters in next year's "The Avengers".

As for the other actors, including recent Oscar-winner Natalie Portman, they do a fine job with what they're given to do, which isn't a lot, but it's fine for this type of an origin story. Here's hoping that in future films their characters are fleshed out a little more.

Grade: A-

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides/Walt Disney/Dir. by Rob Marshall/Rated PG-13/137 min.

Pirates 4 is not a bad movie, it's simply an uninspired one. I know that the last adventure of Jack Sparrow, "At World's End", has it's detractors, but I'm not among them. I found "A.W.E." to be a perfect ending to the story of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, with each of these characters ending their arc in a surprising, yet somehow inevitable place.

The mistake that "On Stranger Tides" makes is it assumes Jack Sparrow was the hero of the previous Pirates movies. He wasn't. Not even a little bit. Those films were always the story of Will and Elizabeth with Jack being the "Puck"-ish character throwing a wrench into everything. However, here he's cast as the leading rogue and it just feels off. He's given a romantic sparring partner in Angelica Malon (aptly played by Penelope Cruz), however their romantic chemistry is never given much time and the audience is meant to care about it not because of said chemistry, but because...well....we're told they used to care about each other a lot. Sorry, but moviegoers usually prefer to see a relationship built on character and situation rather than be told to care about a couple.

The real romantic sub-plot is shuttled off to a bland preacher and the only bland mermaid in the movie (for some reason the mermaids are represented as horrific piranha-like creatures, other than this one pretty, but bland exception) and their stories conclusion is frustratingly unresolved.

The characters are still fun and there are a few nice moments (the revealing of the fountain of youth is pretty nifty), but it's easily the weakest of the series and a bit of a disappointment.

Grade: B-

"Kung Fu Panda 2"/DreamWorks/Dir. by Jennifer Yuh/Rated PG/90 min.

Think about the original "Kung Fu Panda" for a moment. If you didn't like it, you won't like this one. If you liked it because of the fat-panda-getting-beat-up jokes, you probably won't like this one. If you liked it because of the sincerity of the screenplay, the beautiful visuals and the surprisingly well-choreographed fight scenes, then this movie is an easy recommendation.

Much of the plot is spent explaining how a big panda ended up being the son of a noodle-obsessed duck and the answer is simple and satisfying. Po (Jack Black) learns about his past through his experiences with a new threat to the valley of happiness, a vengeful peacock named Shen (terrifically voiced by Gary Oldman). "Kung Fu Panda 2" not only amps up the threat-level (surprisingly so for an animated film), but it is every bit as visually thrilling as the original. For example, the villainous Shen hides his arsenal of knives among his feathers, so it looks like he's pulling metal feathers out of his skin and hurling them with deadly accuracy. It's kind of a neat visual and is a great metaphor for the character itself, making his menace seem innate, but also revealing it to be more surface-bound. The movie is filled with "more beneath the surface" moments like this in its narrative, which is part of the reason this is such a treat for adults as well as kids.

Grade: A

"X-Men: First Class"/20th Century Fox/Dir. by Matthew Vaughn/Rated PG-13/132 min.

Thus far in the summer of superheroes, this is the best of the bunch. Everything about this film is inspired, from the casting, to the writing, to the direction, it's everything a movie with "X-Men" in its title should be and a wonderful recovery from the scatter-shot "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". By taking the concept of mutants back to its discovery by the U.S. government and placing it against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis, "First Class" re-vitalizes the franchise and re-imagines it as a superhero movie set in a James Bond universe. Michael Fassbender is not only easy to visualize maturing into Sir Ian McKellan, but he embodies Magneto with an understandable and uncontrolled anger that is terrifying and empowering all at once. As Magneto's frienemy, Charles Xavier, James McAvoy is terrific, especially when he's pleading with his friend to maintain his humanity. The special-effects are awesome and the action sequences are what summer was made for, but the movie is great because of this unlikely friendship, which is at the heart of the full-blooded superhero/political thriller.

Matthew Vaughn ("Stardust") is a fantastic choice to direct this film. He's always shown a knack for presenting the fantastic as merely the background to intimate stories about relationships and that is the sensibility that "X-Men" was built around, both as a comic series and as a film series.

Grade: A

"Super 8"/Paramount Picture/Dir. by J.J. Abrams/Rated PG-13/112 min.

I was 11 years old when "E.T." was released in theaters and it was the first movie that I saw multiple times in the theater. (I was too young to see "Star Wars" in the theater and too young to have discretionary money for multiple viewings when "The Empire Strikes Back" came out). At 11, I was the target audience for Spielberg's fantasy combining the mundane aspects of suburbia with the incredible concept of getting an alien best friend. I, like everyone else, was entranced and was transported by the experience.

Director J.J. Abrams has made no secret of the fact that "Super 8" is his tribute to the Spielberg films of the late 70's/early 80's and elements of old-school Spielberg are all over the place. Foul-mouthed, but good-hearted kids? Yep. One parent households? You betcha. The kids even have a middle-school science teacher played by the same guy who played the high-school science teacher in "Gremlins".

With such sincere, but obvious, tipping of the hat to Spielberg, it'd be easy to dismiss "Super 8" as more love letter than movie, but Abrams also realized that the best Spielberg films are about realistic characters overcoming the genuine hardships of life against the backdrop of extraordinary happenings and in so realizing he has made a truly heartfelt film that is as much a tribute to youth itself as it is to Spielberg.

As a word of warning to families, "Super 8" also keeps the Spielbergian tradition of scaring little kids spitless. The other-worldly forces here are not benign like "E.T." and there are scenes that play out more like "Jurassic Park" or "Jaws". If you wouldn't let your child see those movies, don't take them to this. Also, if the kid-related cursing in "E.T." or "The Goonies" bothers you, this one will too. Otherwise, feel free to enjoy. It really is a treat.

Grade: A


"Green Lantern"/Warner Bros./Dir. by Martin Campbell/Rated PG-13/105 min.

Personally, I think most critics were a little harsh on this movie. It's entertaining and fun to look at. Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively are solid and likable actors and Peter Saarsgard is a perfect nebbish-turned-maniacal villain. The are really only two problems with "Green Lantern". First is the central plot conceit, which is that aliens from all over the universe have harnessed the energy of will power into ringsg that give their wearers the ability to materialize anything they can think of. They use this power to defend the universe against evil. This is a very, very, very silly premise. It is, however, the premise of the comic book as well, so the movie is simply being true to the source material. If you can laugh off the premise and go for the ride, you'll be fine.

Secondly, it's an origin story and as such, it's not much different from the roughly 5,375 other superhero origin stories Hollywood has produced lately. There's a guy, he's in love with a girl, but it never works out because of one central flaw (vanity/shyness/arrogance, take your pick). However, he then gets super powers from an unusual source (dying alien/radioactive spider/unrealistic technology, take your pick) and through that power is able to overcome the aforementioned flaw. The one thing "Green Lantern" has that a lot of these other origin tales don't is a sense of humor. For example, in a lot of these films the heroine can't recognize the hero when he's wearing a mask, in spite of the fact that they've been intimately connected for years. Heck, she usually doesn't even recognize him when he talks in his regular voice (I'm looking at you Lois Lane!). "Green Lantern" addresses this cliche quickly and in a way that winks its eye at the other clueless heroines in superhero films.

While the first two acts of "Green Lantern" are pretty standard for an superhero origin film, the final act hints at the potential of this story as a franchise. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the last 20 minutes have some of the best moments I've seen yet this summer. If the inevitable sequel can build from that and make a whole movie that's as solid as the last 20 minutes of this one, that sequel could be one of the best superhero movies ever. As it is though, the "Green Lantern" is made up of some great moments and some merely adequate ones.

As such, its grade is an above-average: B-

OK, I'll try to write this blog about once a week, to keep you abreast of what movies are new and worth your time. Thanks for reading!!!

2010 We Hardly Knew Ye....

I realize that I'm about a month late, but this is part of the problem with not getting paid to do this. I'm subject to release dates and figuring out how or when I'm going to be able to see the movies that I'm supposed to see if I love movies. Plus, I'm also bound by my personal tastes. As a result, I know that I come short. For example, when I have time and the inclination to see a movie and I want to see one of the year-end "prestige" films, chances are far better than I'm going to watch a Coen Bros. western as opposed to a dark psychological thriller about the competitive nature of ballet. Go figure. Therefore, there are "prestige" films that I haven't seen...because they haven't opened here or I only had time to see one of them or I simply wasn't in the mood.

So please take everything I say with a grain of salt. This list is not the 10 best movies of the year, they're the 10 best that I saw. With that disclaimer, I present my 10 favorite films of 2010.

10. Tron: Legacy - I feel confident stating that I'm probably the only person making such a list that put this movie on it and, yes, I understand that the plot has issues and that the character Clu, played by Jeff Bridges, but digitally altered to look younger, is more nightmare inducing because of his plasticine face than he is for his tendencies toward tyranny. However, I really thought this movie was a giant ball of cool. The effects were extraordinary (and absurdly overlooked for an Oscar) and the action was eye-popping. This is the most flawed movie on this list, but darned if I don't love it. (Plus, the Daft Punk score was 10 shades of awesome)

9. Secretariat - My grandfather worked with racing horses and some of my fondest memories of family trips involve visiting him at his summer job. There's such a unique vibe behind the scenes at a horse track. I think that horse racing gets a bad rap because of all the gambling and drinking, but I seriously remember it being a very family friendly place. Maybe that's why this movie struck such a chord in me. It's horse racing seen through the eyes of Disney, which is to say that it's old-fashioned, sanitized and emotionally manipulative, but I love it. Diane Lane is absolutely committed to the role of Penny Chenery, the owner of Secretariat who simultaneously builds his career, saves her horse ranch and salvages her struggling family. They truly don't make movies like this any more. It's a movie genetically engineered to make an audience cheer.

8. True Grit - I'm a fan of the Coen Brothers style, but sometimes their movies dwindle into the gruesome and disturbing a little much for my tastes. "True Grit", their take on the novel by Charles Portis which also inspired the only movie for which John Wayne won the Oscar, certainly doesn't shy away from the gruesome and disturbing, however, much like "Fargo", it views these events through the eyes of an innocent. In this case, it's a fiercely determined 14-year-old girl, played by the incredible Hailee Steinfeld. While Jeff Bridges' and Matt Damon's lawmen are integral to the plot, this is the story of that girl and as such maintains a level of humanity and universality that is often missing from hard-edged westerns. It's a sweeping look at a seemingly lawless time in American history and a fine addition to the Coen Brothers' canon of films.

7. Tangled - I don't think a movie surprised me this year more than this one. After the last decade, the magic of Disney animation seemed lost forever. With every film, there seemed to be a desperate desire to play catch-up to the hip and edgy style of DreamWorks. "Bolt" was an entertaining film, but a decidedly un-Disneyish one (it felt more like an attempt at a Pixar-style buddy comedy). The problem with all of this is that Disney was trying to be something they simply weren't. Last year's "Princess and the Frog" was definitely a step in the right direction, but the story was more juvenile than the stunning artwork that framed it. Well, Disney seems to finally have remembered who they are. "Tangled" is a fresh and buoyant return to the type of films Disney made in the early 90's. It's not a re-tread of those films, but a joyous addition to the tradition of them. The animation is soft and luminous in a way that makes you forget you're watching a computer animated film. It FEELS hand-drawn. It's truly a stunningly beautiful film to look at, but the story that surrounds that artistry is equally joyous and buoyant. While other films from Disney animation have seemed to work exhaustively for every gain, this one effortlessly entrances.

6. How to Train Your Dragon - I realize that I have a few animated films here, but that's not just because I'm an animation fan (which I am). This year, the big three (Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks) each released films that will long be remembered among their best. This terrific year for animation was kicked off back in March with this fantastic adventure. For only the second time in their existence (the first being "Kung Fu Panda") DreamWorks created a film that was about character and story instead of tired pop culture references rapped in a day-glo colored gloss. It's multi-layered, extremely entertaining and will easily be one of the films of the year that I re-watch the most.

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I - I'm a bit bewildered that this series hasn't gotten more love on year-end lists and Oscar nights. What started out as a charming, but cloying series about a magical castle/school has turned into a superlative character study and surprisingly frank look at the way government and media can manipulate the truth and, therefore, the people. As the characters have grown, so has the narrative and artistic styles of the films, growing darker and richer with each episode. This seventh and penultimate entry marks a high-water point of creativity and depth for the series. Each of the other stories have taken a mystery shrouded in a vague sense of foreboding and wrapped it around stories of school life. There was a familiarity with the formula of each installment, but that familiarity is jarringly yanked away in this film, leaving the protagonists in the darkness of the world, unprotected by guardians and mentors. In doing this, the characters are allowed to transform into fully-realized individuals who behave much like any teenager would in similar situations. This is truly a wonderful film.

4. The Social Network - This film has been praised for being a film of our time and that it certainly is. "The Social Network" is a product of the 00's much the same way that "Wall Street" was a product of the '80's. However, being "of the moment" doesn't make a film great. What makes this film exceptional is the screenplay by Aaron Sorkin. Much the way he did in "The American President" and "The West Wing", Sorkin reminds us how fun a language English can be. The words in this film create a palpable tension that is orchestrated almost like a verbal symphony. It's an amazing thing to hear. Plus, the acting's pretty great too.

3. Inception - Here's where we get into the difficulty of putting together this kind of a list. In some ways, I think "Inception" is the most masterful movie of the year. It is so richly constructed and memorably executed that I can't really think of any other movie making a more historically significant impact on the world of film. The only thing that keeps it from the top spot is it engaged and thrilled parts of me more than it did the whole. Which is to say, it never grabbed my heart the way a couple of other movies did. This is not an insult. I think the movie would have had less of an impact had it gotten overly maudlin, but such is the difficulty in picking favorites. Sometimes your favorite person isn't the smartest or the most talented, but it's the one who grabs you by your heart and won't let go. That having been said, I think that "Inception" will be a movie that will be examined in film schools for years to come as a master class in expert film-making.

2. The King's Speech - One of the most inspiring movies I've seen in a long time. Though the title may imply differently, this is not so much the story of a royal learning not to stutter as it is the story of a man desperately trying to figure out how to overcome his own short-comings in order to reach the greatness of which he knows he's capable. In other words, this is the story of life...everyone's life. Overcoming our own personal roadblocks in order to progress and reach our potential is a, if not THE, central theme of life and this movie deals with that process and that struggle in a way that is truly inspirational. (for my friends who are deterred by the film's "R" rating, let me state that this is one of the most ridiculous ratings I've ever witnessed. It's rated R for one scene in which the protagonist is instructed to curse as a means of overcoming his stuttering. In this scene, the F-word is uttered more than the three times allowed for a PG-13 rating. Without this scene, the film would undoubtedly be rated PG, as there is nothing outside of this scene that would even necessitate a PG-13 rating. Just so you know. :)

1. Toy Story 3 - Once again, a Pixar movie has swooped down and claimed my heart. I wasn't really expecting this one to grab me the way that it did, but by the end of the movie I was sniffling and holding back tears just like everyone else. The secret to this film (and to the other great Pixar films) is that it's not for kids. Sure, the story about toys coming to life is obviously a no-brainer for winning kids over, but the plot is about feeling abandoned by children as they grow up. These movies are, and always have been, about parents. They're about the combination of pride and pain a parent feels as their children become more independent and need them less and less. The film is also about the way we deal with our own mortality. There is a scene (and if you've seen the movie, you'll know exactly what scene I'm talking about) in which the characters decide that the only way they want to face mortality is hand in hand, united. In that single image, I see everything I love about Pixar. They're not afraid to deal with the darker aspects of life, but there is a positivity and a humanity that permeates everything they touch. Not only is this a great movie, but it cements the Toy Story trilogy as one of the greatest film series of all time.


Now, I would like to give my own awards for the year. Welcome to the Paul's (a.k.a, the worst attended awards show ever)

Cutest characters of the year: The Minions from "Despicable Me" - The plot might try to convince us that the orphans are the cute ones (and they are pretty cute), but they can't compete with the "evil" minions living in Gru's basement. I want one of my own. I want it now.

Best Bad Movie of the Year: "The Last Airbender" - This is truly a horrible movie, but it's one of the most entertainingly bad movies I've ever seen. Add the commentary track from rifftrax.com and you have the makings of a fantastic comedy.

Best Use of 3D: The flight scenes in "How to Train Your Dragon" - This year there was some good 3D and there was some pretty bad 3D, but the scenes from "Dragon" were breathtaking. (runner-up: the healing incantation in "Tangled")

Best Proof That In Spite of My Love of "Little Women" and "Pride and Prejudice" I Am, Indeed, A Man : "Eat, Pray, Love" - Blech. This was a beautifully shot and acted movie built around one of the least appealing characters EVER. The selfishness displayed on her "road to self-discovery" crosses the line from narcissism to reckless endangerment. If this exact plot had been filmed with a man in the leading roll, it would never have seen the light of day because it would have been seen as an unwatchable misogynistic mess. But the scenery truly was beautiful.

Best Excuse to Wring More Money From the American Public: "Avatar: Special Edition" - Typically, movies that are released in "Special Edition" form are done so years after their initial release. Sometimes it's because special effects have improved to allow the director to expand (as George Lucas did with "Star Wars". Thank heaven that technology allowed us to see what Jabba the Hutt's face looks like when someone steps on his tail). Sometimes it's because the movie has gained a cult status and people are clamoring for another serving (such was the case with "Blade Runner"). However, in the case of "Avatar", it was obviously about the money (because being the highest grossing film of all-time wasn't good enough). But I'll be darned if I didn't like the special edition better. Much like the extended versions of "Lord of the Rings", it fleshed out several characters and gave us more insight into the plot. Plus, it was fun to see all those battle scenes in 3D again.

One More Nail in the Coffin of Rom-Coms: "Leap Year" - I so wanted to like this movie. I love romantic comedies when they're done right. (In fact, if you want to get technical about it, "Tangled" was the best romantic comedy of the year) Plus, I think Amy Adams is one of the most likable actresses around. However, this movie pulled out every single tired rom-com cliche with the subtlety of a chainsaw. Still waiting for a good, non-animated romantic comedy to which I can take my wife.

Best Animated Short That Can't Be Nominated For the Oscar For Best Animated Short: "The Tale of the Three Brothers" from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" - Was anyone else as blown away by this animated sequence as I was? Wow.

Things I learned from the movies in 2010:

If you're not sure if you're dreaming, just try to remember how you got to where you are.

It's good to think of as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Taylor Lautner is physically incapable of keeping a shirt on.

Apparently, growing up means giving your toys away to the cute toddler down the street. I guess I never got the memo.

I can't go to the moon because NASA isn't sending the monkeys anymore.

When you try to "Benjamin Button"-ize Jeff Bridges, he looks like one of those creepy "Polar Express" kids.

Feeding chicken to a chicken is a bad, bad thing.

Jay Baruchel's voice is far less jarring when it's coming out of a cute cartoon character's face.

If I'm ever trapped in an elevator with four strangers and people start to die, I should turn on the old woman immediately.

Apparently, there is a Vegan Police Force. Who knew?



Anyway, that's all I've got for now. If you have any questions or think I'm out of my mind, feel free to comment. TTFN!

Movie Review: Tangled

"Tangled" / Rated PG / Disney / 92 min. / Dir. by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard

It is my happy duty to report that Disney is back. Yes, I'm aware that the conglomerate super-entity known as The Walt Disney Company never left. However, there has been an oddness about their animated output for roughly the last decade. An oddness that has made even their best films seem strangely "un-Disney". They've been trying to play catch up with the other big boys. "Chicken Little" was clearly an attempt as a DreamWorks style action-comedy. "Meet the Robinsons" tried to add a little Pixar-style sentimentality. However, none of it came naturally. Most of these films smacked of desperation mixed with committee thinking.

Last year, when I heard that the film "Rapunzel" was being renamed "Tangled", so it would appeal to both little boys and girls, I was worried that this movie would be one more example of how the corporate heads of the company can demographic a good story to nothing. However, this is far from the truth. "Tangled" is a sheer delight. It's bright, funny, tuneful and a visual feast. Again, with "Tangled", Disney, or rather the Disney magic, is back.

The story of "Tangled" is roughly the traditional story of Rapunzel, however, the prince has been swapped out for a thief and she has a chameleon companion to get her through the days. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) has grown-up believing that the world is a wicked and frightening place and that her mother (the fantastic Donna Murphy) has been protecting her by steeling her away in a tower. In actuality her mother isn't her mother at all, rather an old hag who kidnapped her shortly after her birth in order to use the magical restorative power of her hair. That's why she never cuts it. It her hair gets cut, it loses it's magic. Therefore, life for Rapunzel is a never-ending schedule of various indoor activities (reading, cooking, painting and, of course, brushing her hair). That is until a thief by the name of Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) stumbles upon her tower and changes her life forever.

Being the Disney nerd that I am, I actually purchased the soundtrack to "Tangled" last week and have been listening to the songs, getting every little nuance and plot detail. I really enjoyed the music, but it works even better in the context of the story. Melodies that were merely enjoyable are transporting in the narrative and many of them are so memorably staged that they immediately draw ones mind to the early 90's Disney heyday of "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin".

Visually, this is truly a stunning movie. Plus, it's the first movie I've seen since last year's "Avatar" that uses the 3D presentation as an immersing and enhancing story element as opposed to a cheap "gotcha" gimmick. The colors are bright and warm, the backgrounds lush and the character animation is superb.

The only depressing thing about this movie was the opening trailers. Normally, I'm the biggest fan of movie trailers. I push to get there in time to see them all and relish in the ones that I love. However, the upcoming onslaught of horrible looking "family" entertainment (including next month's "Yogi Bear" and the next Disney/motion-capture film "Mars Needs Moms") just reminds me of how much producers talk down, not only to children, but to their families. If you want to experience something truly special with your children, take them to "Tangled" this week. If you want to see something at Christmas time that's truly special, skip "Yogi Bear" and see "Tangled" again. If quality films make a mint, we just might get more of them. And, if "Tangled" makes a mint, we might just see the completion of that return-to-Disney-magic that we've all been hoping for.

Grade: A

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I" / Dir. by David Yates / Rated PG-13 / 146 min. / Warner Bros.

Has there ever been a book series and, by nature, a film series more evolving than the Harry Potter series? Among the many strokes of brilliance executed by J.K. Rowling in creating the series, one of the most impressive is choosing to have the central characters evolve in such a natural way that the shifts in tone from light and wide-eyed to foreboding and unsure seem less like a narrative decision and more like an inevitable fact of life. As we grow older, our problems get more and more complex. So it is for all of us, including those Hogwarts-attending magic-doers. Although, I do admit that as I've matured, my problems have never approached the level of sheer weight as those of Harry Potter.

The new film (part 1 of 2) is the darkest of the lot. Not only is Voldemort, Harry's arch-nemesis, back and in full power, but he's also completely infiltrated the Ministry of Magic, which basically means that the list of people Harry and his friends can trust just got a heck of a lot shorter. With the exception of his stalwart pals Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) is more on his own in this edition than any previous installment. For the first time since the story began, he has no mentor. They've all either been killed or otherwise taken out of the picture. The trio are adrift in the real world, having forgone their final year of studies at Hogwart's in order to fulfill a very dangerous and rather cryptic mission given to Harry by Dumbledore. Since Dumbledore is not available to consult, the three are left to figure out how to find and destroy several Horcrux's, magical items that contain pieces of Voldemort's soul. Once the Horcrux's are destroyed, the dark wizard will finally be mortal and tactically vulnerable.

One of the most notable things about "Deathly Hallows" is that it immediately departs from the formula of the other stories (i.e. - Harry goes to school, he and his friend try to solve a mystery while studying for exams and playing Quiddich, they all fall in awkward teenage love, etc.) Taking the characters away from the safety of Hogwart's not only allows the plot to move into new and unforeseen directions, it also seems to give the lead actors permission to really own their parts. The casting for the Harry Potter films has been uniformly excellent (this is the best contribution made by initial director, Christ Columbus). However, up to this point, I wasn't really convinced that the central trio were actually actors, as opposed to children who grew up with the characters for long enough that they instinctively knew how to approach them. No, these performances are sure and masterful. In fact, that's the word that describes the entire film the best. Masterful.

The artistic choices made by the director? Masterful. The screenplay that is a paragon of "show, don't tell" virtues? Masterful. The engaging and virtually seamless special effects? Masterful. The musical score that may not be melodically memorable, but creates a mood perfectly balanced between menace and whimsy? Masterful.

In fact, the story is so masterfully done that the only complaint is that the whole audience would be perfectly happy to sit for another 2 1/2 hours and finish the story. I know that we have to wait until July, but this film is so engaging and beautiful that the months can't fly by fast enough.

Grade: A

This is Halloween.....

I have decided to write my traditional Halloween-themed blog. However, before I do, here are some mini-mini-mini-unbelievably mini reviews to catch you up on what I've seen since my last post.

Devil: A moderately scary B-
Easy A: An easy B (with reservations. If you ever want to know what they are, feel free to ask)
Legend of the Guardians: B
The Social Network: A thought provoking A-
Secretariat: A crowd-pleasing B+

OK, now with the Halloween stuff. In the past, I've shared what my favorite movies to watch at Halloween time are and I think we all have our own list of movies that need to be enjoyed to fully acknowledge the arrival of All Hallow's Eve. However, this year I've been in a little bit of a funk. For one, I've been way too busy to just sit down and watch movies, so if I want a quick Halloween fix, I've been leaning on installments of The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror" episodes.

Secondly, for some reason I've been thinking about a different type of scary movie. One that wasn't meant to be scary at all, or rather scary scenes in non-scary movies. I think we all have a mental list of those too. Scenes that show up in the middle of a Disney cartoon or a family film that make us go, "What was that?!?" So that's the focus of my blog this year. The ten scariest scenes in movies that are not known as being scary.

NOTE: Obviously I'll be discussing specific scenes and plot points, so avoid reading if you haven't seen the movies. There'll be spoilers a plenty.

Honorable Mention: "The Care Bears Movie"

Yes, I'm serious. The reason I don't include this with the rest of the list is that it's not a particular scene that's at issue. It's the whole central premise of the movie. If you've never seen this film and think I'm off my rocker, let me explain the plot to you. A child, who is the assistant to a circus magician, encounters a book of evil magic and, after opening it becomes possessed by a dark spirit. Yes, it's the Care Bears vs. the necronomicon! Of course, they defeat the darkness with an extra powerful Care Bear Stare, but still, who in their right mind thought "Ah, the kids'll love this caring story of demonic possession"?

10. King Kong (2005): The Pit - Yes, I know that some people may balk at my inclusion of this, a remake of the original monster movie, but I argue that it's better known as a tragic and unconventional take on "Beauty and the Beast" than a horror movie. That having been said, when the hapless explorers fall into a giant pit only to be devoured by giant bugs, it's pretty shocking. You can feel Peter Jackson reliving a little bit of his horror movie past in this scene. Genuinely disturbing.

9. Princess and the Frog - "Friends On the Other Side" - Uncle Walt loved scaring little kids, as is evidenced by the inclusion of a few more Disney movies on this list. Perhaps that's why last years "The Princess and the Frog" was considered a return to Disney-style story telling. Much like the aforementioned "Care Bears Movie" dark magic, voodoo to be specific, plays a key part in the plot. In the song "Friends on the Other Side", the villainous Shadow Man calls upon evil spirits to transform the debonair Prince Naveen into the titular frog. The ceremony comes complete with a prick of the Prince's finger and the storing of his blood in a voodoo idol. Just good old-fashioned family fun.

8. The Black Hole - Maximilian's Cuisine-art - In the early 80's, Disney was doing everything they could to imitate the success of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg (much like they've tried to imitate the success of Pixar and DreamWorks in recent years). So it was only a matter of time before they tried to make their own space adventure as an answer to "Star Wars". Well, "The Black Hole" ended up being a fascinating failure. Instead of sticking to the action like Lucas did, the writers tried to go the "2001" route and confuse the audience at every turn. However, there's one scene that was forever scarred into my 12-year-old cerebellum. When the evil robot Maximilian turns on Anthony Perkins and dices him up with his hands/spinning blades. Granted, there's a certain amount of irony in Norman Bates meeting a grisly end at the end of a blade, but it was still pretty shocking to a kid.

7. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) - "Hellfire" - Don't get me wrong, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is actually one of my favorite Disney films. The music is soaring and the central theme of tolerance is timeless. However, I know many people that hate it just because of this scene. In the musical number "Hellfire", the antagonist, Judge Claude Frollo begins praying that his temptation towards the gypsy Esmerelda will be diminished. However, as the song progresses it's clear that he has no intention of trying to control his own desires. He comes to the conclusion that either she will be his or he will kill her, burning down all of Paris if he has to. At that point a chorus of ghostly monks rise from the floor, surrounding him menacingly. It truly is a terrifying scene and it does indeed deal with subject matter much more adult than one would expect from a Disney film. However, I would argue that it's far better for a mature child to be shown the dangers of hypocrisy as opposed to the dangers of multi-tentacled sea witches or power-hungry lions.

6. Pinocchio - Pleasure Island - Hedonism never pays. It will get you drunk or high, but you will invariably turn into a jackass. That's the central premise of this scene in the 1940 classic "Pinocchio". As the kidnapped children partake of cigarettes and gambling and alcohol, they all turn, graphically and horrifically, into donkeys. They are then sold as beasts of burden to the highest bidder. It's interesting that the jarring nature of the transformation, not to mention the wanton use of the word jackass, was less of an issue in the 40's than it is now, but it definitely showed that Walt Disney loved to use fear as a teaching tool. Speaking of which.....

5. Dumbo - "Pink Elephants on Parade" - Drinking will make you see horrific mutant elephants who can turn from comical to nightmarish with the blink of an eye and the rip of an elephant's ear. What's even worse is that Dumbo didn't even mean to get drunk. He just fell in an open barrel or alcohol. Poor kid.

4. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - Shelob's lair - As I mentioned earlier, director Peter Jackson got his start in low-budget horror movies. His films "Bad Taste", "Meet the Feebles" and "Dead Alive" are notoriously dark and gruesome. He holds his horror roots back for much of The Lord of the Rings films (with just the occasional specter or nightmare), but he let's it all out for this scene, in which the heroic Frodo is stalked by a giant man-eating spider named Shelob. Keeping the scene shrouded in silence, Jackson ratchets up the tension until the moment that (GASP!) Shelob injects her poison into Frodo and wraps him up for later. We've spent the whole film series watching Frodo escape one inescapable predicament after another, but in this dark, terrifying moment, Jackson lets the spider win. If only for a little while.

3. Spider-Man 2 - Doc Ock's surgery - Much like Peter Jackson, the director of the Spider-Man trilogy, Sam Raimi, got his start in horror. However, we really don't see an inkling of it until this shockingly brutal scene early in the second film. While he is still unconscious on an operating table, Doc Ock's arms spring to life murdering every doctor and nurse in a particularly grisly fashion. After seeing this movie in the theater, I was surprised that the studio let Raimi keep the scene in, so jarring is the tone shift from the rest of the movie. However, it was still fun seeing Raimi romp in his old macabre playground.

2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind - The Kidnapping - It may be hard to remember, but "Close Encounters" was actually marketed almost like a horror movie. Of course, now we know the aliens were benign and all they wanted to do was a musical jam with Kodaly hand-signals, but Spielberg originally wanted the motives of the aliens to be more obscured. No where is that better seen than in the scene when little Barry Guiler is kidnapped by the aliens. If one watches this scene and then watches "Poltergeist" it's very easy to believe that Spielberg was far more involved in the latter's filming than his executive producer credit would indicate. The lights go out, the toys and vacuum turn on independent of the power and the house is shrouded in light as the aliens try to get Barry through the chimney, the vent and, finally, ripping him from his mother's arms through the doggy door. If I were to show you this scene alone, you would be absolutely convinced that Close Encounters was a horror film.

1. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - The Boat Ride - When my nephew was younger, he had a habit of walking into a room, looking at everyone and saying, "What the?!?". He would then pause for effect and leave. This is truly the only response I can think of for this scene from the 1971 children's classic, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory". What the?!? For those of you unfamiliar, Mr. Wonka invites his guests on a delightful boat ride on a chocolate river. Fanciful, no? As the boat enters a tunnel, he entertains his guests with flashing strobe lights, nightmarish visions of worms, eyeballs and chicken decapitations, all the while droning in a psychotic voice "There's no earthly way of knowing which direction they are going...." To those of my friends who believe Tim Burton's 2005 remake is far more dark and inappropriate for children than the original, I point to this scene and say...What the?!?

Well, that's my list. In the comments below, let me know what scenes from otherwise benign movies give you the heebie-jeebies. It's fun!

Plus, if you're looking for a fun Halloween activity tonight, attend Resonance Choral Ensemble's concert, "The Witching Hour". You can get your tickets here, http://www.resonancechoral.org/thewitchinghouroctober2010.cfm or at the door. Mention my last name (Elison) as a promo code at the door and you get a discount. Woo-hoo!

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!