Review: 'The Saratov Approach'

Serving a mission is extremely life changing. I myself served an LDS (Latter-Day Saint) mission, albeit a four month service mission and not a two year proselyting mission. Nonetheless it was a time in my life that I will not be soon forgetting. The only thing is I was never kidnapped and held for ransom during that time.

This is based on a true story about two Mormon missionaries, Elder Propst and Elder Tuttle, who were one day kidnapped and held for ransom while serving in Russia. They were held hostage for five days when, without really spoiling anything, something short of a miracle occurs.

'The Saratov Approach' is a very well made film, with some really good performances and a convincing sense of dread and hopelessness. And how do the kidnapped missionaries get through it? They play it straight, going through simple, casual talk, debate about their favorite basketball teams, players and so on. Are they scared for their lives? Yes, but they try not to show it. They may not understand why they are in this situation, but they go along with it anyway, hoping they will find deliverance in the end.

Most of my life, I haven't been the most fond of 'Mormon Cinema', seeing how most of the movies seem to satirize Mormon culture and poke too much fun at it, giving little attempt at actually showing the world what the church really stands for. Not to say there aren't a few Mormon produced films that are actually good. In the tradition of 'Saints and Soldiers' (2003) and 'The Best Two Years' (2004), 'The Saratov Approach' is a smart, mature film that plays not only for Mormon audiences, but for audiences who are not of the faith as well. I believe it's a film that can resonate with anybody, whether religious or not.

It has discussions on the subject of religion, without getting too preachy. It debates the logic of human doubts and faith, yet never becomes too pretentious. Almost everything is balanced out real well, from being a tense thriller, to an inspirational drama. I do wish that the musical score could have been toned down a little bit in certain scenes, but that's one of the very few complaints I have about the movie.

The film is supposedly set for a nationwide release pretty soon. If that's indeed the case, I would very much recommend seeing 'The Saratov Approach'.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug'

One of the things that both 'An Unexpected Journey' and 'The Desolation of Smaug' have gotten absolutely right is they've taken the most interesting scenes in the book and made sure they were the most interesting scenes in the film(s). Riddles in the Dark, in Gollum's cave, and, well, the Desolation of Smaug, inside the Lonely Mountain.

This film, 'The Desolation of Smaug', certainly was better than the first installment, 'An Unexpected Journey'. Yet only by a small amount. With it being set for yet another (final) movie after this one, film two still takes much time and drags on rather slowly, or for too long in fight/action sequences that really have no purpose in being there. That was mostly my main problem with the first film as well: The insistence that Peter Jackson should make these movies similar to, and even bigger, than 'The Lord of the Rings', when it really doesn't need to be. Sure it is very entertaining, but only in the moment and doesn't really stay with you long once the movie is finished.

The Story: 'Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, is taken upon a journey with a the wizard, Gandalf, and a group of dwarves, in order to reclaim a homeland and ancient treasure from the fiery keeping of the gigantic, ferocious dragon, Smaug.' Simple, right? One might think so, were it not for numberless additional subplots and characters that are being added to this quaint story. But, to the film's credit, the additional material does in fact make things more interesting than they ever were in the original book. The original story has always been a little too simple to be that interesting.

To me, what made 'The Lord of the Rings' movies so great and memorable was they took an equal amount of time developing its story and character relationships, along with it's action and special effects, balancing them evenly. With 'The Hobbit' films however, I remember the spectacles and effects a little more than I do the many characters and subplots in the films. Which seems very ironic, considering how much shorter the novel, 'The Hobbit', is than any of the Lord of the Rings books are.

The saving grace of this movie is Smaug, the dragon. Where do I even begin in describing this character? That's right, character. Not a mindless creature, or just another typical obstacle to defeat (albeit, an enormous one at that), but a magnificent beast with personality, voiced and even performed by the incredible Benedict Cumberbatch. His scenes, as the dragon, are golden; no pun intended. This has got to be one of the greatest dragons ever depicted in movie history. No doubt one of the largest of the dragons.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Saving Mr. Banks'

For as long as I can remember, I've always loved Walt Disney (no surprise there, as most of us do). And I love Tom Hanks as well. But when I first heard Mr. Hanks would be playing Mr. Disney in this film, I didn't really think he could pull off that sort of charismatic innocence that Disney himself could emanate. Thankfully, I was wrong and reminded why Tom Hanks is such a great actor. For the most part of the film, I could see Walt Disney himself brought back to life.

'Mary Poppins' is one of my favorite Disney films of all time, and yet it came very close to never seeing the light of day. P.L. Travers, played wonderfully by Emma Thompson, is the author of the 'Mary Poppins' books. Her books are loved and cherished by many around the world, including Walt Disney himself. So much so that he's committed himself to adapting the stories as one of his films. But Travers, being the eccentric, self-centered author she is, won't allow it.

People are calling the film 'aggressively sentimental' and too sweet. Well, frankly, we're missing that in films these days. What I don't understand is today's notion that if the world we live in is harsh and cruel, then most of the movies need to be that way as well. Hollywood feels they need to be edgy and gritty to get a wider audience. Wasn't there a time, long ago, when we entered a movie theatre expecting to leave all of our troubles behind us for a couple of hours? Or to feel a reassurance of the majesty that is still left out there in the world? Yes, it was the time when the events in this particular movie, 'Saving Mr. Banks', took place. What comes across on screen is a movie filled with wonderful gags and charms that only a Disney movie can pull off and not be looked down upon for it as much. The blending of both drama and light-hearted humor is also balanced really well in the film, with flashbacks to Travers's troubled childhood, and then the present whimsical times with Disney.

This film brought back many wonderful memories of being a kid again: Going to Disneyland for the first time at the age of 7, or hearing certain family members share their Disney memories (my uncle was a little boy when Walt Disney approached him and a group of kids to shake their hands at Disneyland). Or browsing through a book about Walt Disney for the first time and of me wanting to grow up and work in the movie business. Big memories, little memories, all memories worth cherishing.

I loved how this film, 'Saving Mr. Banks', emphasized how important the making of 'Mary Poppins' was to Walt Disney. Especially with making the author, P.L. Travers, pleased with what he has done for her life's work. Extra care and respect was laid upon the subject, despite how difficult it would get. In many respects, I'm sure that's why 'Mary Poppins' has stood out to many generations of audiences more than any other Live Action Disney films.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'Frozen'

I find it kind of ironic that 3D, CGI animated films are even more cartoonish and goofy than the traditional hand drawn animated films. Especially when the computer animated ones are striving to look more real and alive. Well I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

For some reason, the look and feel of hand drawn animation always felt more elegant, graceful and, well, alive. 'Beauty and the Beast' (1991), for example: We are more than aware that what we are looking at is a cartoon, but when the animators give most of the characters the proper proportions and bodily features that we see in real life, the more engaging they become and gripping the story and emotions can be. But in a movie like 'Frozen', despite the characters clearly being more three-dimensional, they are surprisingly more exaggerated than ever before. Their bodies are too thin, the heads are too round and the eyes are too big. They also move way too quickly, and give little feeling of physicality and realism. Half of the illusion and enchantment that I remember, as a kid, from animated Disney films is lost because of it.

The computer animation may work for Pixar, and that's because Pixar created it. They brought their own different addition of animation to the table. And that's perfectly acceptable. But as far as traditional Disney animation goes, I don't feel like it works out too well.

The story and songs for 'Frozen' are pretty generic and predictable. Many plot elements from other animated Disney films are borrowed from and put in this movie, yet they only have half the effect. Some of the time, there is really nothing wrong with that, but occasionally it's very disappointing. And here, it is that. For me, at least. The audience I saw this with were enjoying themselves greatly. They were laughing at all the jokes, gasping at all the twists and turns and everything. And all I have to say is, 'Good for them'. I really mean that. This newer style of Disney animation clearly has an audience and they obviously relish in the magic.

The strongest story element in here is the relationship between the two sisters, Anna and Elsa. I like that the writers are trying to create stronger female role models for young girls. There's also at least one song in here that didn't feel too bland and forced, called Let It Go. That's just two of the small good things I got out of this movie.

I hope it's not because I'm getting older that I didn't enjoy this as much, because, on the contrary, I am just as much a kid at heart as I ever was in my childhood.

My rating: 2.5 / 4

Review: 'All Is Lost'

Unlike 'Cast Away', with Tom Hanks acting against an imaginary companion, and being surrounded by civilization in the first act of the movie, Robert Redford in 'All Is Lost' has nothing. There is no story, little to no dialog, and yet this may be one of the most engaging movies you see this year.

Our Man, as he's credited in the movie, is sailing out in the open ocean when a large crate slams into his boat, causing it to flood. And for the next hour and a half, it's a fight for survival.

Not having been nominated for an acting Oscar in decades, this could finally be Robert Redford's next nominated role. With nobody else to act against, he does the best that anyone can do to hold your attention. In many ways, we are him. Throughout this whole ordeal, you find yourself asking all sorts of questions, and figuring out what you would do if you were caught in that situation. Would you panic and give up, not knowing what to do? Or would you stay calm, relax and figure out how to get out of the situation? All those questions and ideas are played through him flawlessly.

This is a very good, bold film that demands respect. I've been trying to think of the last time I saw a movie that was driven by only one cast member, and literally nobody else. As far as I can think, no luck. There have been movies where there were long segments or acts with only one character, but almost never through a film's entirety. This movie is one of a kind.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'Ender's Game'

I felt, while watching this movie, that there were a lot of missed opportunities that flew by which would have been great ones. Instead much of the focus was spent on the visual spectacle of the film. No doubt, the filmmakers spent their money well when it came to that conclusion: It looks and feels fantastic. 

Andrew "Ender" Wiggin, a young boy chosen for his unique abilities, is given the opportunity to attend Battle School, a school which prepares and trains children and young adults for another possible alien attack which happened half a century in the past. Hyrum Graff (Harrison Ford), believing Ender to be 'the one', puts everything the facility can offer on him, making sure he is truly the right choice. 

I'm aware that there is only so much you can do, compressing an entire novel into a two hour movie. My only complaint is that much of that time is spent during action sequences, and not enough in the development of Ender's character. That's at least what I felt. Also, the pacing of the film is, to be frank, way too fast. It feels like their trying to rush through everything in order to just get to the last ten minutes of the film (which really is the most intriguing part of the story).

With visually striking simulated battles, and mind-games testing your wit and will, you would think the director and screenwriter, Gavin Hood, would allow the audience to play along with these games, instead of just letting him take the controls most of the time. The book, written by Orson Scott Card, is rich with deep meanings of life, existence and questions of how/if you can trust anybody more than yourself. Along with insights into what's happening in Ender's psyche through the book. 

Admittedly, I had never read the book before until right before seeing the movie. Maybe that is the reason why the movie felt downplayed, for me at least. This is a very good story, and the story is clearly here in the movie. I just wish that there would have been better care taken with the structure of the screenplay, and not this obligation to make it rush by so quickly. As a stand alone story, it's very good. As a stand alone movie, it's decent. 

My rating: 2.5 / 4

Review: 'Wadjda'

I had never even heard of this film until two days ago, when my Film and Culture class had been assigned to meet at the Broadway Theatre in downtown Salt Lake and view it as a class. That made the film all the more powerful, being introduced to a culture on the other side of the world that I have no idea on how it works. That's one of the greatest things a foreign film can do to you: Take you places, introduce you to people, give you a bit of a culture shock even, all without physically going anywhere.

It's really a miracle that a film like this was even made, considering the ongoing setback the United States is having with the middle-east. It's also a miracle because, as the film portrays, women are not allowed to show any part of their body outside of their own homes. So what efforts were taken in order to have the women revealed out in the open streets of Saudi Arabia, for a movie? This is a film about women in a corrupt system from Saudi Arabia. And it is all seen and experienced through the eyes of a young girl, Wadjda.

Wadjda, a spunky, rebellious girl (always wearing blue shoes, instead of black; also rarely keeping her head cover on when men are in sight), lives with her mother. Her father comes and goes every so often, being with other women, supporting other families. Wadjda wants to race and play on a bike with her friend. The only problem is, he's a boy and Wadjda's not. Girls are not supposed to ride bikes. Being the smart, sneaky little girl she is, Wadjda does whatever it takes to earn the money to get the bike. Even if it means learning the Koran by memory for a school competition.

The boldness and realism of the film is it's strong-suit. It also occasionally uses cliches that are eventually turned on their heads, making them feel new again. The movie brings a smile on your face that you didn't expect to be there, and wherever Wadjda goes, you want to be riding close by her side, supporting her all the way.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'Captain Phillips'

Paul Greengrass, the director of 'Captain Phillips', is undoubtedly a stickler for authenticity. Almost every one of his movies are as realistic-looking as they can be. I remember watching 'United 93' (2006) for the first time, and completely forgetting that I was watching a movie. As far as I could tell, it was pretty darn believable as to what possibly did happen that day on 9/11. There's a lot of believability in this new film as well, just not quite as much as I hoped. But only just.

Based on a true story, in 2009: On the East coast of Africa, Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks), sails his cargo ship into open Somalian waters, despite warnings of piracy. The ship is eventually taken over and turns into a battle/game of wits and will against these adversaries.

Other than Tom Hank's brilliant performance, which is his best performance since 'Cast Away' I think, half of my praise goes to the actors portraying the pirates. To my understanding, most of them had never acted a day in their lives before. And here, they deliver absolute convincing performances. Barkhad Abdi particularly, who plays the lead pirate, gives a conniving, snake-like performance here that's worthy of an Oscar nomination.

As I mentioned before briefly, the authenticity is definitely present in this movie, yet artistic licensing can be sniffed out occasionally here-and-there. And if there's one major thing I would have to criticize deeply about this film, it would be the musical score selected for one pivotal scene. The music is a specific track that is taken (or borrowed?) directly from the soundtrack of 'United 93'. Call it what you will, but that felt a bit lazy to me of the director and composer, and it kind of bothered me. It made this movie less greater than it was aiming to be. I won't mention what the scene is, but I will say it's a pretty big one.

Despite some set-backs and certain technical choices in the final editing/mixing that were made, 'Captain Phillips' has still turned out to be an emotional, powerful film with an equal amount of pleasant surprises.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'Gravity'

Surprisingly, it is rare to be amazed by computer generated images (CGI) nowadays. But after watching this film, the special effects envelope of filmmaking has been pushed even further than it has been in years.

First of all, many people are claiming this as being one the greatest science-fiction films in years. It's not science-fiction! Sure, one might mistake such a thing as outer space and space suits and ships as being fictional. But, the truth is, all of what you see depicted in this film is factual. This is something that could indeed potentially happen, and that makes the concept all the more terrifying. 

What we have here are two astronauts, who are engineers, going about with another day at the office in space. Meanwhile, an accident occurs causing their space shuttle break apart. Sandra Bullock's character, being one of the astronauts, finds herself detached from the shuttle, drifting out into open space.

The things that were great about this movie were this: The special effects and the visuals. This film might possibly be the most believable experience you will have in a movie theatre this year. The opening scene of the film alone sets the tone and the mood for the rest of the movie and what you are set to behold. The scene consists of one continuous long shot of sequences, with no cuts or editing whatsoever. You become a fellow astronaut in this entire scene, experiencing everything they are. You go throughout the entire movie, scene by scene, pondering over what is a computer effects shot, or what is the real thing. I will be extremely surprised if this film does not at least receive the Academy Award for best visual effects this year.

By now, you're probably aware of how adamant I am on good storytelling and good characters. Despite 'Gravity' being an experience unlike any other this year at the movies, there are still certain problems with it. Though it's lead character(s) is clearly strong and committed on surviving, I felt like there could have been more time to develop her character and see her grow as the film progresses. Instead, the film turns into one long obstacle course, one after the other. When Bullock dodges one catastrophe, another immediately follows. After that next one passes, she's caught in another blender. For a film that was aiming on being "grounded" in realism and believability, the situations that occurred ever so often felt a little far fetched.

With that said, I still really enjoyed this film. I especially praise the way it looked in the IMAX theatre, in 3D. Watching it in that format, I could not imagine it being seen in any other way. See it in IMAX, there is quite literally no other way to experience this film. Be aware though that as you exit the theatre, you will feel a little dizzy. It's basically like re-entry back onto Earth.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'In A World...'

What can you say about Don LaFontaine, the voice of God when it comes to movies? Whether you knew of him or you didn't, there is no doubt that everyone has heard his voice. Every time a movie trailer would begin, usually the first words you would hear was that deep, dramatic 'in a world...', which the title of this movie itself implies.

Mr. LaFontaine passed away in 2008, leaving behind a tremendous legacy. And despite him being acknowledged in this movie, the rest of the story and characters are fictional. The plot: As the movie industry is searching for the next big voice, one of those many dreamers is an unlikely female named Carol, played by Lake Bell (who also wrote and directed the film). Carol strives to prove herself into being something more than she already is, and hopefully make a statement to not just Hollywood, but to society in general on rights for women.

I myself have taken a couple of brief voice over classes in the past, and unlike what I had expected, it was surprisingly not easy. Like this film depicts, how you use your voice is an art-form. Or it's a 'choice' as one character so boldly put it.

This is a very clever, funny and enjoyable movie with really good characters from an original screenplay. One of the things I feel this movie accomplished very well was it's subtlety in tonal shifts from comedy to drama. In many cases, this film is a comedy, no questions asked. Yet it still manages to make you think about your own situation and what it is you aspire in your own life.

If you're looking for something heartwarming, or you are a lover of film in general, then this is a must see. It's a real shame that a wonderful film like this is being shown only in a few select, art house theatres. Because this is one of the more enlightening movies you will see which a modern hollywood, hundred million dollar budget could not muster up.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'The World's End'

What is it about the british that makes them so funny and clever? Ever since Monty Python's Flying Circus, I believe comedy has been changed because of them, for the better. Maybe it's the polite sounding british accents speaking ridiculously absurd phrases that makes it so funny, I don't know. The point is, they have left a huge impact, and I would find it hard to believe that the filmmakers to this film (and trilogy) were not influenced by the Python.

Director Edgar Wright, and stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have created one wild trilogy of films, filled with blood, laughs and ice-cream (by the way, there's a terrific 'Cornetto' gag in this particular film which 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' fans will get a kick out of).

 In the ultimate pub crawl, Gary King (Simon Pegg), who has screwed up his life, having nothing better to live for, wants to reunite with his high school friends to finish what they started, twenty years in the past: twelve pints, at twelve pubs, the last being the 'World's End', in their hometown. The only problem is, in the midst of their quest, they learn that the town has been taken over by aliens.

And all the fun and chaos ensues from there.

What I really admired about this film, and the previous two films as well, was despite having crazy amounts of humor and violence, they manage to get some really heart wrenching moments of character development and emotions in there, adding things that make these characters feel all the more believable and like the very people we know in our own daily lives. I also like how the roles for the actors have been reversed in every movie. One who played the respectable cop and/or manager, previously, is now playing the slob, jerk loser. And the one who played the complete screw up, previously, is now a respectable businessman.

There are times where I did feel like the humor wasn't as fresh, funny or clever as 'Hot Fuzz', admittedly. Even the technicalities of the film, editing and camera-wise, felt a little lazy during some scenes and not as upbeat and quick-flowing from either 'Shaun of the Dead' or 'Hot Fuzz'. But, then again, that did allow me to focus more clearly on the story that was unfolding, one little bit at a time, and I have little complaints about that.

I really enjoyed this film. In a summer of fairly poor rehashes, flops and unoriginality, 'The World's End' was a good slice of redemption to going to the movies. Is the movie perfect? No. But it has enough clever gags and a surprising amount of heart and soul to overshadow it's problems. This is the best film I have seen all summer.

My rating: 3.5 / 4

Review: 'Pacific Rim'

I remember the day when I was first introduced to what became a childhood favorite of mine with VHS copies of 'Godzilla vs Megalon' and 'Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla'. I was around 7 years of age and since then, throughout the rest of my childhood, I had watched almost every Godzilla movie. The good, the bad, the strange and even the american Godzilla. Giant monsters beating down other giant monsters (and occasionally giant robots) was always the way to go in my youth.

There's no doubt this movie, 'Pacific Rim', borrows heavily from the 'Kaiju'-type monster movies from the past and pays great homage to them as well. The second half takes place in Hong Kong, after all. But the problem is that many of todays audience won't be looking at the movie in that particular nostalgic fashion, but more on the overblown, 'Transformer'-like CGI effects for mindless entertainment.

Having seen previews for this movie, and the huge emphasis on the special effects/action/mayhem that's shown with these giant man operated robots, I had my doubts. I was expecting to hate this movie, that it would become another 'Transformers' rip-off, which I was already never fond of in the first place. To my surprise, I was only half wrong.

Yes, sure, it had it's moments that were fully overdone with the action and effects. Yes it involved aliens coming from another universe bent on destroying all humankind. Yes it involved giant robots defending the earth from the alien species. But it all came down to these two important things: Pacing and character. I was pleased to see there were actual moments in this film that let you spend time with these characters and make way for them to develop. I'd say there's at least a good fifteen minutes in the movie that allows just that. So when the end of the film comes around, you actually do sort of find yourself rooting for these decent characters to save the world from these giant, Godzilla-sized alien rhinoceroses. Well, that's what they looked like to me.

The films director is Guillermo del Toro, and his work from the past has left a strange impact on me. Some of his films I don't find any liking for, like 'Cronos', then there are others that I really adore, like 'Pan's Labyrinth'. 'Pacific Rim' is definitely his biggest film, budget and effects-wise, to date and I find myself sort of in the in-between of the previous two films mentioned. I don't love this movie or find it great in any way at all, but I'm far from hatred towards it and found some surprising amount of fun oozing off from it. Overall, it was surprising with what it delivered.

My rating: 2.5 / 4

  

Review: '42: The Jackie Robinson Story'

I guess I kind of put off seeing this film for a few months, partly because I never was the most fond of sports movies. They just always seem more predictable than other films. After seeing this film, I still stand by that statement, yet that doesn't mean I don't think they're good. They really are good, especially when done right. And in the case of '42', many things are done right.

The story is that of Jackie Robinson, the first african-american to play in major league baseball with the Brooklyn Dodgers. It most definitely is an inspiring story. But, of course, every bit of inspiration has to come with an extra dose of cliches. I'm not sure how much of the events in here are factual, and the others are put there for artistic purposes, but i've seen them portrayed plenty times in football and baseball movies alike. It is definitely a film that plays like a soft, feel-good underdog story from the '80's and '90's. And yes, society does need to hear these stories every once in a while. Anything that can brighten your day in the slightest bit is something worth while.

Co starring alongside Chadwick Boseman, who plays Jackie Robinson, is Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey, in probably one the best performances of his career. I know, that does sound a little odd, knowing it's Harrison Ford and how he usually just plays himself in his movies. But in this movie, he actually pushes himself out of his bubble and gives a performance that makes you at least forget half of the time that it's Harrison Ford.

Along with that, there are many good performances in this film. So good, in fact, that I don't need to hear some melodramatic musical score in the background for practically every other scene. In a movie like this especially, I believe if an actor's performance is good and moving enough, I don't need an obvious cue as to tell me how I should feel in the moment.

There are issues to racism in this movie that are really obvious, but also ones that are surprising and startling. In a good way as well. How does racism usually start, and where does it's influence come from? That's one of the many questions this film asks and, in a few very good scenes, answers boldly. I also found it really bold in showing how racism can never really be lifted from certain people, no matter what the situation may be.

Going into this movie, I wasn't entirely expecting much to be impressed with. After watching it though, I didn't feel any sense of regret whatsoever, and it left me with a good feeling. If you do end up watching this film, there will be no time wasted at all.

My Rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Much Ado About Nothing' (2013)

If Shakespeare himself were to have seen four hundred years into the future, he most likely would have been pleased to see his work being treated with love and respect. Especially in the last two decades, the cinema has been privileged in having Shakespeare's words and stories emanate from the silver screen with such style; With the likes of 'Coriolanus' (2011), adapted by Ralph Fiennes into a contemporary setting in modern day Rome. Or Kenneth Branagh's version of 'Hamlet' (1996), which remained in a period setting, but still over a hundred years ahead of the time it was written. And now, we have Joss Whedon's modern day, contemporary version of 'Much Ado About Nothing'.

I've been familiar with this play in the past, and I must say that this one is a little minor on the scale of Shakespeare's other greats (in my humble opinion). But with that said, I really do like this story nonetheless. After all, mediocre Shakespeare is better than no Shakespeare at all. The language of Shakespeare is very much alive in this adaptation, and that's mostly great. There always has been, for me, a sort of weird feeling seeing these modern day individuals in everyday attire speaking as though they have come from another time and place. But I guess that's part of the charm of it, and it works for the most part.

In many ways, this was one of the first romantic-comedies in history, and surprisingly holds less cliches than most other 'rom-coms' of today. That's just one of the many genius things that hold up about Shakespeare. The man was definitely ahead of his time.

Joss Whedon is certainly one of the most talented filmmakers today. Not only can he create convincing and compelling characters, popular television shows and one of the highest grossing movies of all time ('The Avengers'), but he also has a passion for literature and apparently will do anything to bring it to life. Like filming it in his own house, for instance. Yes, the main location for this film was indeed Whedon's own home. And according to some sources, he filmed this entire movie in the course of a single month. That's some pretty solid dedication.

With Joss Whedon being the adamant man on story-structure he is, it only makes sense that he should pay tribute to the master storyteller himself, of whom was William Shakespeare.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'The East'

I was looking forward to seeing this film. Now, having finally seen it, I'm not so sure if I really saw it. Despite there being decent, even good, performances, the movie suffers heavily from a very uneven screenplay.

I don't know if I just didn't understand the subject material that was being dealt with in the movie, or if I just didn't really care all that much about what happened. This whole thing was just convoluted. So many detours and intricacies are taken in this story to a point where it's pretty much just pretentious. Brit Marling, who I've admired in the past with her much better film of which she wrote and starred in ('After Earth'), this time around has left a disappointing mark.

After an hour or so once the movie had ended, I found myself having little to no decent memory of what this movie did to me intellectually. In the moment, as the film was playing, I tried to understand what most of these ideas the film was trying to get across. Maybe I'm just thinking harder than I should, admittedly. 

The revolutionary group, known as the East, are all about giving large pharmaceutical companies a 'taste of their own medicine' and fighting fire with fire. There were times, particularly in the middle of the film, where I did begin feeling a bit of emotion for what the main characters were trying to accomplish, with a subplot involving a poisoned water-supply. But near the end of that act, yet again, the subtly of the situation and the message the movie is trying to portray goes into overdrive, trying to bash the message quite literally over your head. The juxtaposition is just a little too over the top.

Characters are introduced, and then they just disappear. Plot devices are set up, but never referred to again. Most of the characters are forgettable, and I just could not find any clear focus in the story.

I'm pretty sure the subtext of this movie was really, in a way, about civil rights and equality. I'm perfectly fine with that, but instead of keeping it ambiguous and up to interpretation for the audience, they just turn it into a show-and-tell of individuals who, at one time or another, have been shunned by society in world history; like the african-american, the fat person, the gay person, the deaf person, the mentally challenged, etc.

The film has good intentions, but it feels like it's trying to say something deep, when it's really nothing we haven't heard before and don't need to be reminded of.

My rating: 2 / 4

Review: 'Man of Steel'

The movie plays like one long trailer. A two and a half hour long trailer at that, with introductions to great ideas and setups that rarely, if ever, get answered. There was so much potential and so many opportunities to create something that we've never seen in a superman movie before. It really grabs your attention, making you think it will do something of the kind. But just when you think something great is going to happen, and that there will be further character development, the action begins and the movie swoops off into conventional blockbuster territory.

A couple of things I was pondering through while the movie played were this: How would this movie have played if it weren't really about superman at all, and about Clark Kent instead? What if superman didn't even come in to the picture until the very last scene of the movie? For one thing, you would lose a lot of audience members if that happened. They want to see the man in the cape. Yet that's a real shame, because most of the best scenes from the movie were the scenes that involved Clark in his childhood, growing up in Kansas. I wanted to see more of those scenes. The flashback scenes were handled very well, giving us a perspective of how Clark sees and hears the world, which is a thousand times more advanced than all of humanity. He is terrified. The struggles he deals with by keeping his abilities a secret from the world, despite his will to protect it, is always a good conflict.

This is not trying to be like the 1978 'Superman', and that's admirable. It tries to be something different and new, and sometimes it succeeds. The planet of Krypton and its genesis is delved into more than ever before, and the look of the planet is different as well. That's one of the few differences with this movie. Unfortunately, almost everything else is the same, only with a severe face-lift of modern day action and special effects.

It might be just me, but it felt like 'superman' himself showed up in the movie a little sooner than expected. Let me explain: After the destruction of Krypton in the films long prologue, we are quite literally shot to present day earth and shown these rather poorly paced scenes of Clark Kent traveling the world, saving whomever he can, then radically changing scenes and time settings to years in the past. Then before you're finally settled into that scene, it switches back to the present time, beginning an even newer scene. This goes back and forth, progressing the convoluted plot points until suddenly... Clark Kent just walks out quite casually in the red-and-blue. The point I'm trying to make is that a lot of the pacing in here is really fast. Too fast, in fact, like it's trying to just get to the big action sequences, which last a little too long and clearly is where most of the time and effort was spent.

Another big problem is the technical side of the filmmaking. Remember in 'The Avengers' where nearly every action scene you could actually see and tell what was happening? That's because the camera work was still and smooth, creating a kind of 'controlled chaos' effect. Not the case in this movie. I swear to you, I can't remember a single shot or scene where the camera would stay still. Even small scenes of dialog, the camera is up in the actor's face shaking them all over the screen. Handheld camera techniques were fairly cool in it's prime, but that time has long gone. Keep the camera steady! That's why they invented the steadi-cam.

All in all, this movie is fifty-fifty. There are a lot of really good things about it that I enjoyed, and then there are things that are just plain old disappointing. This had so many chances to be a solid good movie, but with all its problems, it's only semi-good.

My Rating: 2 / 4

Review: 'Monsters University'

After the terrific success of 'Up', it seemed like a door for new possibilities had been opened for Pixar. Unfortunately, Hollywood seemed to catch up with Pixar and their unique filmmaking qualities. After a bad sequel (Cars 2) and only a decent Scottish fairy-tale (Brave), it seemed Pixar was losing it's touch. 'Monsters University' just might have broken that bad chain.

Anybody can make a sequel. Seriously, look at the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movies. But it takes real talent, work and ingenuity to make a good sequel.  With 'Monsters University' it's very clear that a lot of work went in to making the film. And, for the most part, it succeeds.

Before Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan were the best of friends at Monsters Incorporated, they started out as rivals in their freshman year at Monsters University, trying to scare their way to the top of the line.

The movie starts out strong, oozing off a sense of nostalgia that I yearned for from the original film. The animation is top notch (which is to be expected) and the story, surprisingly, is told really well. Admittedly it is not the most original story, and it is very predictable at points. It's the nobody-becomes-somebody tale, yes we all know this story very well. Too well. But the thing I really liked about this film was it's ability to bring new surprises to the table for this already old fashioned story. That's where the third act of the film comes in, which is a real highlight for me. And it holds a good message for kids that all parents will appreciate. It even applies to adults as well, come to think of it.

Being a big fan of 'Monsters Inc.', I was looking forward to seeing the continuing adventures, or in this case original adventures, of Mike and Sulley (whether it be good or bad). So to my surprise, it was actually better than I had expected, and that's always a sweet surprise.

This movie gives me hope for the sequels Pixar has planned for their other hit films. My only wish is that in the middle of that process, they will still come out with an original piece of work every so often.

P. S.: I also have one question about the short film that's shown before the feature film. How much of that was live action photography and how much computer animation? Because, either way, Kudos!

My Rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Star Trek Into Darkness'

What do you get when the most interesting character in your movie is the villain? Well, that's just the point. You get no clear focus on what's going on with the plot and characters that are sadly one-dimensional yet trying to be two-dimensional. At least the visuals are spectacular and the action is entertaining.

I know I would probably get a lot of negative responses from this, especially considering how my own name is referred constantly by my friends to a certain captain of this series, but I got to say it: I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. Mostly because I simply didn't grow up on it. That doesn't mean it's bad though. In fact, that's far from the reason. It is really fun with occasionally clever ideas that occur out of the blue. Or the stars, for that matter. I guess the problem I sort of have with the Star Trek universe as a whole is the, surprisingly, undeveloped characters who are strictly there to serve in the exciting missions that we as the viewers embark upon. Let's face it, the futuristic technologies and starship missions are the real stars of the franchise.

There was so much hype built up towards this movie, implying that this would be a groundbreaking achievement, story-wise and technically, by Star Trek standards. Unfortunately, When you get down to it, it's just another Star Trek movie. No, it really is, it's the 'Wrath of Khan' all over again, with just a few new twists and turns to make it seem like it's doing something new. There seems to be no clear focus half of the time as the movie comes closer to it's climax, until suddenly it reaches it's third act and quickly rushes through it and just stops. The pacing could have been fixed greatly in this movie.

Spoiler Alert! Why are many villains in movies these days planning to be caught by our heroes halfway through the movie? I remember back in 2008 when that was actually clever when 'The Dark Knight' used that to its advantage. Now it's just overly used, becoming almost a cliche after only a few years.

With all this that I have said, you're probably expecting me to give 'Into Darkness' a really bad rating, right? Actually, no. I'm still giving it a fair, decent rating. Why? Because it really was fun and entertaining. When you look past all the flaws and, as Mr. Spock would put it, "illogical" scenarios, there is a lot of creativity here in the roller-coaster style action and stunningly visual imagery. There is a clever set decoration in one particular scene where a Starfleet commander has a table in his office with models of spaceships throughout the years lined up in one long row, starting with the space race of the 1960's to the current, present 'star date', which is a few hundred years into the future. The actors give very good performances for their characters, keeping them interesting enough, with the little development they have. And once again, the show stealer here is the villian, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. Reaching 'Joker' status (again from 'The Dark Knight'), Cumberbatch's performance leaves the greatest impact upon this movie, making you want more from him when he is not on screen.

My final verdict would be 'Star Trek Into Darkness' is a fun, yet average, matinee feature you may like to check out, sometime before it leaves the giant screen. As for me, it's not really anything special I can picture myself watching again in the near future.

My Rating: 2.5 / 4

Review: 'To the Wonder'

The unique quality of Terrence Malick is his uncanny, yet great, ability to make you observe the simplest things in life, the things we all take for granted, and turn them into something we have never seen or noticed before. Of all of Malick's films, from his debut with 'Badlands' (1973) to this film, 'To the Wonder' just might possibly be the most "Malick-y" film he has ever made. That's saying a lot, considering Malick's previous film 'The Tree of Life'. You really have to be in the right mood to watch this film.

Being possibly his least interesting film to date, it is still nowhere near being a bad film at all. It's a continuation of 'The Tree of Life' in a sense. The atmosphere it creates, along with the mood, characters, situations and visuals: They're all on a similar scale. That can both be bad and good. Though it seems somewhat pretentious and occasionally repetitive, in a world where we are so often force fed everything we see and touch, it's refreshing to escape once in a while, take a deep breath and relax. If it still has even the smallest bit of power to make you walk out of the theatre and view the outside world in a new light, then there's no doubt something good to be recognized in here. While watching this movie a thought came to my mind which was what if Malick's intention is not only to teach his audience a lesson on life, but also his own actors and crew.

Like Malick's last couple of works, there is no basic plot or story-line in the film. What it is is a journey and observation of the lives of these particular people at this particular time in their lives. We are shown how they deal with the situations they are in: how they deal with love towards each other, how they despise one another, betray one another and forgive one another. Sometimes it's a continuous cycle. It becomes so rooted in our own minds that we begin to think about or own relationships, or the relationships of others, and how we can better strengthen and perfect them as best as we can. That feels like the work of a true visionary right there.

I feel like if Terrence Malick were alive in the years of silent cinema, he would have been the perfect man for the job. He would have been an excellent silent filmmaker. Malick's narrative has certainly changed a bit in his last few films, being more deep and philosophical than ever before. It even gets to the point where it feels like you're dreaming, and in a good way.

To give a Terrence Malick film a poor rating, even one of his below average films, would be almost unforgivable in my opinion. Each one of his works has a real deep, great passion and effort. Watching one of his films is like watching (and listening) to a symphony in a concert hall. To simply let you experience something for what it truly is, without romanticizing it, you have to respect that.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Iron Man 3'

Welcome to my review for 'Iron Man 3', or as Tony Stark puts it, 'A Few Tricks and a Cheesy One-Liner'. That's the Tony Stark personality we know, and that's the Tony Stark you get in this movie, but with at least a few new features. That's not including his suit and gadgetry.

I know I'm almost a week late with this, but what can I say? I'm not saying I'm not a fan of Iron Man, because I am. I'm just not the biggest fan, to put it mildly. It's almost pointless for me to talk about this film because, odds are, almost half the world's seen it by now. But I wouldn't be writing this now if I didn't have something to say about it.

In a nutshell, I did enjoy the movie. I liked it almost as much as the first movie, which I thought was a good flick. I also liked this one a lot more than the second movie, which was exciting but just too goofy. This is one of those "three-quels" that doesn't suck. The things I liked about it were that they at least tried to make this cocky, ego-maniacal character... less of a cocky, ego-maniacal character. The thing is, this is supposed to take place after the events that occurred in 'The Avengers', and Tony is experiencing some fairly severe incidents of anxiety/panic attacks. Most likely, these anxiety attacks are subject of his experience in New York.

SPOILER ALERT: The sad thing, for me, is these anxiety attacks in the film really don't have a decent resolution. Each attack keeps building up to something that you expect to be big, and it never happens. They're just simply shrugged to the side. Just giving a character a flaw isn't enough to pass as a relatable characteristic, you need a purpose for it and a reason for him to overcome that weakness. It's like saying Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman because he was just bored one day and wanted to fight criminals. Not very engaging. At least, that's what I thought.

I was expecting the sort of 'rise and fall, and rise again' story from this movie. You do get that a little bit, but it's not as emphasized as it should have been. I do think that the villain was decent. It might even be the best villain in the Iron Man series, and I'll leave it at that.

The rest of the movie, it's just your basic action/adventure flick. But thankfully, it's a fun one. It's not on the same level of cleverness and fun as 'The Avengers' was, but it was still fun.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Mud'

Having seen all of Jeff Nichol's films now, from 'Shotgun Stories', 'Take Shelter' and now 'Mud', I have a strong feeling that this guy is going to become one of the next big auteur directors. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with that at all. I look forward to more of his work.

In Arkansas, two young boys are out and about one day when they find a boat in a tree on an island housing a man who goes by the name of Mud (Matthew McConaughey). Mud claims he's waiting for his girlfriend (Reese Witherspoon) so that they can run away together. The two boys decide to help Mud with his mission. But one day, they discover that Mud is a wanted man. Despite the shocking news, the boys continue to help him anyway. How long they can evade the law is anyone's guess.

Many crime dramas these days seem to forget that what makes emotion and thrills flow from it's viewers is the pacing and characters, along with the situations they're in. It's not about the suspense, shock-value or violence. Those things have a tendency to get in the way, with this particular genre. But this film knows better. This is not only a good character study, but it's also a coming of age story. In many respects, this is the young boy Ellis's story, and how he dealt with this one particular incident at this particular point in his life.

To not sound too sappy, there is deep symbolism in here as Mud himself is almost a mirror image of the type of man young Ellis could become if he doesn't shape up and pull himself together. Easier said than done, Ellis isn't doing too well, seeing as how his parents contemplate divorce. And as that happens, Ellis befriends a girl who could be for him, but just maybe he's thinking too far ahead. That's one of the main things I loved about the film, how Mud becomes a sort of father figure to Ellis in a way that his real father never has been. Throughout their bonding, Ellis is taught the true meaning of friendship, respect, loyalty and, yes, even love. Surprisingly, there are many heartwarming scenes in this movie and they also don't feel too forced upon you as well. They're just genuine that way.

I was deeply admiring this film and how it was slowly unraveling things, one after the other. Unfortunately, once it got through to the middle of the third act, that's when things start turning from believable and unique to just conventional, hollywood crime thriller status. It's a bit of a big disappointment on that front and brings the film down a couple notches. But not by much. If there is one more thing I would have to criticize about 'Mud', it would be the fact on how there are many things introduced and brought to our attention throughout the course of the film, almost promising a full resolution in the end. Many, if not most of them, don't happen. It's like those scenes and moments were strictly there as nothing but filler for the running time.

I liked this film better than 'Shotgun Stories', but it's nowhere near the greatness of 'Take Shelter', which I deeply adored. There's nothing to hate here though, and that's just grand. It's new filmmakers like Jeff Nichol's that help reimburse my faith in the future of movies.

My rating: 3 / 4

Review: 'Oblivion'

Back in 2010, when I saw 'Tron: Legacy', I was excited and thrilled, waiting to see what that film had to offer both visually and story-wise. So when I saw it, in IMAX and 3D mind you, I was pretty heavily underwhelmed.  Now it's not that it was a really bad movie. There were things about it that were great. For instance, I loved the musical score along with the sound design, and the visuals were great. The problem with it was that there was little to no story. Without that one crucial element, everything else is just mild. The reason I bring this up is because that film's director, Joseph Kosinski, also directed the new movie 'Oblivion'.

I saw 'Oblivion' in IMAX as well, and it looked and sounded incredible. If that's all you're looking for in this movie, it will not disappoint. Other than that, there is really nothing entirely original here. Many people are saying this movie is incredible with the 'twists and turns' it takes in the storytelling, and yet they don't have a whole lot else to say about it except that it looked cool. I will agree with that second part. The biggest problem that I have with the movie is the story.

Jack (played by Tom Cruise, who I'll get back to in a minute) is a kind of terraformer, though already on Earth, assigned to manage and help clean the earth back up after an alien invasion that occurred decades in the past. That past is our present, only a couple years ahead, in 2017. Jack's not alone though, with the assistance of his lovely partner, Victoria (Andrea Riseborough). But these two's normal, daily routine goes awry when a cargo ship carrying bodies crashes, killing all except for one, a woman named Julia (Olga Kurylenko). There's something odd about her though, seeing how she recognizes Jack, but he doesn't recognize her. How is that possible? Well, if there's one thing about science-fiction stories, it's that anything is possible.

So why does it have to be one that we've heard dozens of times before? And to add to that, it's several story-lines and sci-fi elements that have been done already, combined into one movie. It's, frankly, not very effective. The twists that are revealed in the movie are revelations into new plots that are taken from other much better science-fiction films. For instance, without spoiling anything, it starts out with there being no other man on earth except for one. That's pretty much 'I Am Legend' which was already a sci-fi story from the 1950's before the 2007 movie. After that, it turns into various 'Twilight Zone' episodes, then it turns into 'Moon' (2009), then it becomes 'The Matrix' (1999), and THEN it becomes 'The Terminator' (1984), etc. There's even slight hints of 'Wall-E' (2008) in there, an animated family film.

I don't hate this film. Not at all. There are things that I really admire about it. I loved the look of the film, both technically and visually. The production design and art direction was really cool and impressive. The performances were also good, making the various plot points bearable. So yes I actually liked Tom Cruise in this movie. Sure, he's played this type of character many times before, but nobody else does it like him. It's no wonder that he's still a pretty big movie star to this day.

If you have a chance to see this movie in the theatre, I would recommend seeing it in IMAX. That's where you'll get the best bang for your buck. Other than that, I would say rent it or give it a pass.

My Rating: 2.5 / 4

Review: 'The Place Beyond the Pines'

What is the 'Place Beyond the Pines', as the title suggests? What does it mean? Is it a real place, or just a metaphor for something the film is trying to say? All these questions plagued me quite frequently while watching this movie. Is it going to answer those questions, or just leave me hanging?

Ryan Gosling is a motorcycle stunt performer who desperately turns to robbing banks in order to provide for his family. But the cops gradually get closer and closer on his tail until they finally have their showdown with each other. I'm sure that sounds like an entire movie plot right there, all said and done. Actually, that's only a part of this whole thing. That's what makes this film fairly different from others. It takes the three act story structure, tweaks it a little bit, and turns this one movie into a trilogy of movies all in one sitting. I found that rather interesting and refreshing.

To mention anything else about the film's plot would give away many of the surprises. All I will say is that alongside Ryan Gosling, you have a cop, played by Bradley Cooper, and a corrupt cop, played by Ray Liotta, who's just as intimidating as ever. They eventually become deeply involved in what Ryan Gosling's character had started.

The movie tests your patience at times, as it did for me once the middle of the first act started to finally pick up. The strongest point in the entire movie is the middle. Everything started to accelerate from there into something bigger than your typical cops-and-robbers flick. This movie portrays very well how one thing, big or small, can affect an entire family, to an entire community. One person can make a difference, whether good or bad. And in this case, that's legitimately up for the viewer to decide.

I really admired this film, and I wish I could say more about it, but like I said before that would defeat the purpose and message of the film, if there even is one. Has the movie got some big flaws? Yes, some that are even nerve racking to not think about. But that can easily be set aside due to the great performances, interesting story-lines and twists that they make, and a tone that is at times dark, but quite beautiful as well. All I can say is see it, and figure it out for yourselves.

My rating: 3.5/4

Review: 'Schindler's List'

One of my neighbors, who is a long time friend and collaborator with Gerald R. Molen, gave me the privilege of introducing me to him tonight. However brief it was, shaking his hand and acknowledging his presence, it was the kind of thing every aspiring filmmaker dreams of. With that said, the reason for this is because Mr. Molen was in downtown Salt Lake for a Q&A after a special screening of Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List', of which Mr. Molen co-produced and won the Academy Award for best picture of 1993.

Having seen this film once before some years ago, it had left a profoundly deep impact on me. It was eye opening not only from a technical standpoint, by how extraordinary the filmmaking is, but also how enlightening it was on the smallest of details that occurred in this dark time in history. 

I feel like I should explain what the premise/plot of the film is, but then I think that will only slightly take some experiences of the film away as you watch it. Just know that this film deals with the Jewish Holocaust in a very realistic, yet bittersweet manner. It is very hard to watch at times, but then again it is meant to be that way. People need to know and be aware of what had happened at that time. Before this film's release, the Holocaust had only been a footnote in history and then slightly shoved aside. 'Schindler's List' was able to help people realize how important it was to keep this significant event in history cemented in our memories. 

Due to another event I attended earlier today, I didn't show up for tonight's screening until the film was already more than halfway through. But even with that occurrence, the very moment I stepped into the theatre I had already felt the overwhelming emotion that the present scene had been depicting at that time. The movie is just that powerful. Whether you watch it all the way through from it's very first frame, or only see just a couple of scenes, you feel every ounce of effort and passion there was in making this movie as genuine as humanly possible. 

If you have not seen this film, I would strongly recommend that you find the time to watch it. It will be one of the most moving, powerful movie experiences you will ever have. This film gets the highest rating I can give. Giving it a rating any lower would almost be a crime against human dignity. You will not forget this movie once you've seen it.

My rating: 4/4

Review: 'Oz the Great and Powerful'

Review: 'Oz the Great and Powerful'

Knowing the history of L. Frank Baum, and how he has written more than a dozen 'Oz' books, it's surprising how there have never, or rarely, been any other adaptations of his books. I assume it's because of the success of the original movie that it was decided to leave it at that, so things wouldn't go down hill I suppose. With the actual story of how the wizard himself came to Oz though, I believe that part of the story was never even told. So when I first heard the idea behind this movie through promotions and previews, I became very interested. I've never read any of the books, so I have nothing to compare and contrast with them and this movie. This will mainly be with the original movie 'The Wizard of Oz' (1939) in mind. Come on, we've all seen it. It's the only one we know.

'Oz the Great and Powerful' was great to look at, with many things to admire from it. Director Sam Raimi, most well known for the 'Evil Dead' and 'Spider-Man' trilogies, has always had a real charm about him with his talent of camera work and techniques that many filmmakers have tried to copy to this day. Much of that is here along with a couple of new tricks. That's what this movie does best: Tricks. Haven't we all been fooled since the very beginning of films that what we were seeing is real? It's all smoke and mirrors, so to speak, we know it's not real, particularly for a genre like this one. So why do we keep coming back for more then? Well, it's the age old answer to the age old question: Enchantment and escape. We all want to believe that what's impossible is possible, and seeing it happen before our eyes, whether on screen or on stage, is all the more satisfying. It is all delivered both to characters in this movie, and to us the audience.

In early 20th century Kansas, a young illusionist who goes by the name of Oz (James Franco), is seeking more for his life than what he already has. Swept away by a fierce tornado, taking him to a magical land, he may yet find what it is he is looking for. Upon his arrival, he meets three witches, Theodora, Evanora and Glinda. All say that they are good witches, but we all know that one of them is lying. It becomes a whole 'which-witch-is-which' sort of deal. Everyone believes him to be the prophesied wizard that would save them from the evil in the land, but he may have some explaining to to do.

Many things about this movie are to be deeply admired. Like the homages to the original film and subject material. The way the film opens is great, with the 4:3 (4x3) aspect ratio and black and white picture. The references to things we already know I thought were handled wisely, like a brief inclusion of a 'cowardly lion', and how Oz uses his "magic" in the face of danger and desperation. I'd write more about what I liked about the film, but it would give away many of the things the movie has to offer. With that said, there are things in here that, of course, are not perfect. The tonal shifts from dark scenes to cheerful scenes are a little loosely paced, the cliched jump scares are there without offering anything new, and the predictability of many plot twists are very predictable of course. And I know this is a nit-pick, but I think it would have been a little cooler if they had the opening sequence in a more sepia toned look like 'Wizard of Oz' instead of just plain old black-and-white. But that's just me.

I mentioned earlier how it shifts to dark scenes. Well, sure, they can be. But only to the youngest of viewers. Honestly, the kids can handle it. They put up with a lot more scary stuff these days. And knowing both mine and your history with Disney movies growing up, I think it's only fair to say that their movies have left the deepest scars in our psyche. So really, why stop here Disney?

For Sam Raimi fans, you're going to love it. For 'Wizard of Oz' fans, I think you'll like it a lot. I myself am a fan of both, so I did like the film. Is it a great film? No. Is it even a very good film? Not even close. It has it's major flaws. But what it offers, it offers pleasantly, and that's more than enough for me to give this movie a good old recommendation.

My Rating: 3/4

Top 10 Best Films of 2012!

It's been over a year since I last posted in here, and ironically the last post was my top 10 of last year. But, I figure it's better to be late than never. So, without further ado, here is my list of my top 10 favorite films of 2012 (out of all the films I have seen from that year).

10. 'Beasts of the Southern Wild'
This is originality at it's near finest. Being the big winner at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, odds were I had to see it eventually. When I did, I was amazed. Not only was it due to how original the writing was, but by how phenomenal the acting and performances were in general, especially Quvenzhane Wallis, who plays the little girl known as Hushpuppy. It is no wonder the Academy gave her an Oscar nomination for best actress. It was well deserved.

9. 'The Grey'

Throw in a suicidal Liam Neeson, in a plane crash with several other survivors, stranded in the middle of the snowy wilderness, and being pursued by ravenous wolves. One would assume that this is going to be a cool, laid back typical action film. That is not the case. Unfortunately, that is what turned many people off about this film. Which is a shame, because this film has much to offer. It is like a Jack London 'man against nature' story on steroids. Liam Neeson gives a demanding performance, many of the other characters are likeable and not stereotypical, and the threats against the elements of nature feel genuine.

8. 'Zero Dark Thirty'

The first two acts may feel a little slow at times, I admit. But when I think about it, I believe that was a part of director Kathryn Bigelow's intention, to make the audience feel the long, agonizing years it took to track down Osama Bin Laden. That is what makes the final 45 minutes of the film all the more rewarding and affective. That sequence alone is filmmaking at it's finest, keeping you on the edge of your seat, every second of the way. 

7. 'Prometheus'

I'm sure that I am of a small group of people who actually enjoyed this film, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Is this film severely flawed? Yes. Does it have problems that are never resolved? You bet. But man, it was refreshing at the same time. It had a steady pace, great atmosphere and visuals (both awe inspiring and unsettling), and two great lead characters. One of which played by Noomi Rapace, who is  a scientist who is also a devout Christian. The other is played by Michael Fassbender, playing a robot/android, who ironically seems to express much more human emotions and desires than the rest of the supporting cast. I also liked how the film dealt with the subject of faith, and how you should always persevere to the end. It had reminiscent qualities of '2001: A Space Odyssey' and of course the original 'ALIEN', which this was supposed to be a prequel to. For the record, I'm actually glad it didn't go in that direction, and tried to be something different.

6. 'The Avengers'

What can I say about this film that hasn't already been said? Well, it was the biggest surprise of the year for me. With the previous Marvel movies in the past, starting with 'Iron Man' and ending with 'Captain America', I have just one word to say about how I felt about those movies: "...Meh." Don't get me wrong, they are entertaining movies, but to me they just weren't all that great and exciting movies that everybody hyped them up to be. They were overrated is basically what I'm trying to say. So naturally, when time came to see 'The Avengers', I went into it with little expectations. What I got was a BLAST! This was probably the most fun I had at the movies this past year, far from what I expected. The characters were relatable, the humor was hilarious, the drama was good when it needed to be, and the action/spectacle was exciting. Like last years 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' was for me, 'The Avengers' was for me this year: A smart, exciting action/adventure summer blockbuster.

5. 'Looper'

The award for most original science fiction thriller of the year goes to Rian Johnson's 'Looper'. Aside from the fact that Joseph Gordon Levitt with digital makeup still looks very little like a young Bruce Willis, this was a very engaging movie. With elements of 'The Terminator', 'Blade Runner' and some old fashioned film-noir, 'Looper' has genuine thrilling moments that can be equally disturbing and thought provoking as well.

4. 'Life of Pi'

Though based on a book, I think this still counts for being a highly unique and original story. Not only is it visually stunning in just about every sense you can think of, but it is also very bold. Considering how this is being directed toward family friendly audiences, the morals and thematic materials dealt with in this movie are striking at times. And you know what, that's actually really nice to see every so often. Much of the movie dwells upon just two characters, one not even being human, but a tiger. This is a rare example of how special effects help serve and tell the story instead of getting in the way of it. The first special effect being the lead actor who plays Pi effectively well. The other is the stunning, incredible computer creation of the Bengal tiger. This movie is very much an allegory, and a very good one at that. 

3. 'Lincoln'

With the most iconic filmmaker of all time, Steven Spielberg, and one of the greatest actors living today, Daniel Day Lewis, how could you possibly go wrong with a film about the final year of the life of Abraham Lincoln? Thankfully, with that combination, almost nothing goes wrong. Everything is treated with respect, both the history and the people, and Daniel Day Lewis gives the most unique portrayal of the United States sixteenth president. He was Lincoln, no doubt about it. And Mr. Spielberg has equally been making a great comeback over the last couple of years, this being one of them. History buffs and film buffs alike will adore this film.

2. 'Silver Linings Playbook'

I felt like I could relate a lot to this movie. If it weren't for the other movie I have reserved for my number one spot this year, this one would definitely take the spot. The story is absolutely great. The characters are flawed in the most relieving of ways, the situations and choices they make are ones that we have experienced or will experience eventually in our lives. It is funny, uplifting and knows it's limits. Not bad for a movie that deals with depression, anxiety and bipolar disorders. When the film had ended, I walked out of the theatre with a real smile on my face, knowing that I had just seen something very special and that I could look back upon in the years to come. Just about everything in this film is great, and it reminds us that good things, even in the hardest of times, can come to pass.

1. 'Argo'

I loved this movie, first of all. During the Iranian hostage crisis in the late 70's, The C.I.A goes to Hollywood to promote a fake science fiction movie production, in order to fake the hostages as a Canadian film crew and casually get them out of there. This is one of those stories that sounds just so crazy, it has to be true. The recreation of that time period was amazing. The characters were believable, and often funny at times. The blend between comedy and drama was brilliant. This is a near perfect movie, about a fake movie. Films about film have always been fascinating, and that is only the subplot in this. Like 'Lincoln', history buffs and film buffs alike will love this film. Ben Affleck has proven himself to be incredible both in front of the camera, and behind camera. This is the best film of the year 2012! 

~ Honorable Mentions ~

- 'Les Miserables'

- 'The Dark Knight Rises'