TRON: Legacy

The first TRON, while severely dated as it shows a world of a command-line interface system, manages to remain timeless for its portrayal of how that world would operate. I can watch it now and still find myself dazzled at the workings of the system and the thought put into the physics of it all. Legacy will not live up to its name and provide the same snapshot of its time that its predecessor did. Instead it aims towards loftier themes and the affection of a father-son dynamic.

There is a lot of fun to be had here. That clean, sleek-looking digital environment is thrilling to look at and Daft Punk's score brilliantly provides ample energy and emotion. The light cycles get an appropriate upgrade but overall this universe seems to be more of a throw back to the 1982 TRON world than it is a re-visioning of our current digitally saturated world. Pieces of the universe that were previously assigned a purpose seem to exist now only because we are already familiar with them.

The commentary on technology has been replaced with that of the human existence and finding perfection in the imperfect. In TRON we were given a specific and exhilarating objective for the protagonists to achieve and we watched as they fought for it. But here the ultimate goal is more cloudy and much less grandiose. Too many uncertainties arise in regards to the details of this revamped universe, but as always life is simpler if we just remain ignorant. Though the script doesn't necessarily work, the filmmaking is fairly superb and the final scene offers a nice moment and more literary conclusion than the first film.

The Oscar for Visual Effects has, to me, has always been the most fun and fascinating category as it correlates directly with technological advancements in the industry, but 2009 is a difficult year to top after the game-changer that was "Avatar." TRON: Legacy though seems to be the best contender for the award this year (an achievement the original failed to make) with "Alice in Wonderland" perhaps being the main competition. Beyond this deserved recognition and some likely nods for the sound department (and maybe the score if their lucky?) this movie will not make its mark in history like TRON did.

If there is to be a sequel, as there are plans for one, it needs to be much sooner than 28 years from now or else the superficial thrill will wear off. I'm thinking it already has.

The Fighter

David O. Russell pulls off many great achievements with this new flick portraying a dysfunctional urban family. The pacing is inspired, the shots and edits done with intent and the moments of emotional interest deliver quite potently.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a "fighter" not just in the ring, but within his own family. He has to look out for his own interests and, at times, must resist aide from those that he loves. Unfortunately, his character seems to be doing much less fighting than the females around him (who end up in a full-fledged brawl on the front porch). Ward's ascent to the title has been described as "Rocky-like" but Rocky went through personal anguish to achieve his objectives whereas Ward seems to arrive at the title somehow via a much more passive rout. He faces many troubles from outside forces, but very few internal ones.

The cast are the real heavyweights here. I'm tempted to claim that they deserve to take home the SAG award for ensemble cast. Amy Adams and Melissa Leo deliver earnest portrayals of two women fighting for presence in one man's life (one as a girlfriend and the other as a mother) and Christian Bale will win this year's supporting actor Oscar for embodying the persona of not just the crack addicted man he is directly portraying, but the manner in which a person who has been consumed by something self-destructive responds to the world around him.

While I tremendously enjoyed myself nearly the entire duration of the film, the most substantial flaw came with the flat finale. Much of the conflict was less focused on Ward's boxing matches and more on his family. Indeed, I'm willing to go as far as saying that I really did not care nearly as much about the results of Ward's fights as much as I did about the outcome of his family's altercations.

However, our story wraps up with its focus on the boxing without even hinting at how the conflicts between the featured individuals will play out. This is a family whose personalities will lend to ongoing, cyclical turmoil (whether their real lives played out in that manner, I'm not sure, but that's the impression here). The suggested assumption by the end seems to be that everything is fine and dandy, but a discerning viewer knows better yet isn't given anything to chew on. The movie has much to say, but it doesn't all seem to come out.

The Social Network

You may very well enjoy this film immensely when you see it but you're likely to question its rave reviews for it does not launch an emotional catalyst one normally expects from something claiming to be the best of the year. To those who don't understand the praise bestowed upon this film, I say see it again. And again. And perhaps again. Like any art that is truly treasured it presents itself with time.

Comparisons have been made to "Citizen Kane" as both portray a driven and brilliant individual living out the American Dream but yet coming to a point where the things that once meant a great deal to them (in the case of Zuckerberg, his friends) get lost in the process. A character named Erica Albright (supposedly based off a real life person) is given significant emotional weight with the character of Zuckerberg (a liberty taken by the filmmakers) and eventually becomes his "rosebud".

This is a movie that will go down in American cinema history more for its enthralling content matter but yet the filmmaking is the best of the year. Like "Kane," it's not visually flashy. It's relatively simple in its approach but very creative and extremely meticulous. Like most great films of this time period, it's much more of an exercise in editing than photography. Could any other director besides Fincher have handled this material more perfectly? He has been described as a multitasking filmmaker with an extremely acute attention given to every aspect of this art form. What better director to tackle a guy like Mark Zuckerberg?

Aaron Sorkin is an immensely skilled writer that has been overdue for an recognition from the Academy for quite some time. He describes himself as a writer who enjoys dialogue. He mentions seeing the play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" at a young age and not knowing really what's going on but just simply enjoying the rhythm of the dialogue. This movie proves his ability to match anyone when it comes to dialogue. His structure is impeccable as it creates parallel sets of events focusing on the same plot. Many people will be turned off by the non-linear approach as it avoids the usual climax but it couldn't have been made in any other way and have been so smooth.

I'm reminded of a quote from the film "Easy A" earlier this year referencing facebook with the question: "I don't know what it is with your generation's need to document everything?"... but yet we do. "The Social Network" is a movie that defines where we are in our culture and where we are heading. Countless analysis will be written in coming years of the multitude of dynamics at play here: the rise of the underdog, the nerd vs. the jocks, the portrayal of the traditional academic world of the east coast vs. the hip and modern west coast, the countless ethical views, etc.

Perhaps the material is too new and current to really be appreciated right now. People expect great films to be of far off places during times long ago but what they don't realize is that all of this going on right underneath our noses and Fincher has captured it on film for future generations to appreciate. Like "Citizen Kane," time will place it amongst the greatest American films.

127 Hours

True achievement in filmmaking comes when you just can't imagine a movie being made any way other than what it was. 127 Hours is one of a few films this year that can make such a claim.

I would not go as far as saying that Boyle did the impossible by making a film about a man stuck in one spot for nearly the entire time. Yes it might seem static in terms of geography and character population but the dynamic of a man fighting for survival is powerful. There are numerous factors at play here. It's not as if Aaron Ralston simply sat there and did nothing for the entire time. This story is like a war for it's made up of individual battles each with its own level of intensity. One particularly strenuous moment has Aaron (James Franco) attempting to retrieve the knife he has dropped a few feet below him.

Boyle makes the movie a very subjective experience. Every sensation that this character experiences can be felt in the audience. He doesn't just photograph Aaron trying to get the last drop of water out of his bottle. He sticks the camera in the bottle and shows us Aaron's tongue emerging from a chasm in need of nourishment, flailing for the last possible drop.

The structure is appropriate and utilizes flashbacks carefully. A couple of the scenes that we see aren't seen in any context nor do we ever find out the context. All we see is what we need to see to know how Aaron is feeling. Some moments are fused with quirky and yet heart-breaking humor that enhances the dramatic value of the movie. Sure, eventually an arm gets cut off, but to walk away from this movie with that in the forefront of your mind is to miss the entire point.

Boyle's direction out does that of his Oscar-winning work in Slumdog Millionaire by celebrating one man's desire to live and making a movie filled with life itself. Unfortunately, it seems the more limited scope of this project will prevent it from getting the same sort of deserved attention.

Tangled

I was hooked from the prologue. Whatever I had going on in life as I walked into this movie just melted away when I found myself along for this delightful ride as the combination of the Rapunzel tale with mythical elements is downright enchanting. Much like in "Beauty and the Beast," the premise here is immediately laid out and hints precisely at where we are going but gives you a thrilling sensation at the dramatic possibilities.

In keeping the tradition of a princess in distress, the team from Disney appropriately swaps the roles of the female and male from the Brothers Grimm tale and creates an Anastasia-like twist with the lore of a lost princess. It doesn't satirize fairy tales in the cliched manner that has become popular since "Shrek," but instead offers a fresh blend of modern humor and traditional charm. The lengthy hair is given appropriate attention and a worthy purpose to further the story.

At $260 million this is easily the most expensive animated film to date (in fact it has the 2nd highest budget of any film behind only the third Pirates of the Caribbean) but boy howdy did the animation for that golden, magical hair look astonishing! I was skeptical when I read of the filmmakers' intention to create the look of a traditional hand-drawn film within a CGI environment but it seems to have prevailed handsomely as the result is reminiscent of the hand-painted work done eons ago.

This studio is alive and is beginning to once again make its contributions to the art of animation. After basing their previous success mostly on spectacle and charm, they'll have to do some catching up to get their scripts up to the level of narrative structure and character development that Pixar has risen to, but these last two outings give me hope in their potential. (Next year will be a down year for Pixar with "Cars 2," a very unnecessary sequel. Can "Winnie the Pooh" get Disney its first Animated Feature Oscar?)

For the price Disney paid, they should hope to gain a few Annie awards or something to validate the wonderful work they have done here because they aren't going to win the Academy Award over Pixar's climatic Toy Story finale. Although do expect the legendary Alan Menken to add another nod (statuette maybe?) to his resume in the Original Song category.

Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows: Part 1

When J.K Rowling wrote her dedication for the seventh book in her famous fantasy series, she split it seven ways with the seventh part being to us, the readers, if we have "stuck with Harry until the very end." This established the tone as powerfully ominous and Rowling managed to maintain that throughout the novel. Yet again though, a Harry Potter film adaptation merely gives us a taste of those powerful emotions without embracing them.

Fans of the movies and books each have their favorite installments. However, I appreciated each book for what it brought. The first couple established a sense of wonder at this new world, then the plots grew thicker and they became pure exhilaration, and the last few saw any lingering innocence vanish as Harry's world went through its darkest hour.

I cannot say that I experienced the same arc of emotion with the films. I do not prefer any one of the movies over the other for they are all merely satisfactory without being truly fulfilling. The earlier films might have done the best job at imitating the magic of the books, but they lacked the more impressive technical characteristics in the more recent installments. As the beginning of the end is upon us, there remain very few threads between the films. Many small moments that would have established or enhanced particularly important themes are absent. The plot is obviously there, but consistency in techniques would have brought the movies closer to a single entity rather than 8 separate pieces of work.

Peter Jackson successfully accomplished this with "The Lord of the Rings," but Harry Potter does not have a single auteur like Jackson. The Lord of the Rings, while only three films long, flawlessly executes a highly emotional climax. Come July, when Harry Potter comes to its denouement, there will not be the same sense of heightened desperation as our characters struggle to defeat an evil juggernaut because this series has not done enough to earn it. There is no doubt Part 2 will pack an emotional punch, but it will not stand the test of time.

The 7th Harry Potter book holds a special place in my heart for the depth it takes us to. It's one of the most powerful coming of age tales put into writing. Objectives that seem so important in the first few books are deemed utterly insignificant by the last one. David Yates does many things right to help bring at least a portion of those emotions to the screen, but it's not enough to cover the ground that has been lost over the last 9 years.

Inception

Dreams are a very basic (even if complicated) and common subject to tackle. Many movies feature dreams within and around their plotline but how many have you seen that work their plotline within and around dreams? I'm sure there is (or was) an expectation that dreams are too nonsensical to really appropriately be the prime backdrop for a film yet Christopher Nolan has ingeniously found a way to make such a film that works and with only a handful of surreal elements.

It's difficult to make a movie about dreams and accurately reflect them because dreams aren't accurate. Visuals are obscure and often undefined but how can you make a movie with such obscurity? The dream world our characters find themselves in is very detailed and seems to reflect real life too well but Nolan gets around this by craftily blurring the line between dreams and reality. While you might miss its implications the first time through, there is a scene in the movie that hints at the reality Domm Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) finds himself in and at what ultimately turns out to be a very thought-provoking and meaningful final shot.

There are probably many plot points and logistics that will not quite be fully solvable. One could study the film over and over and perhaps find and/or create explanations that will fit, but doing so takes away from the experience. No, ultimately this is a movie about dreams is it not? So what if the plot confuses us a little? Like a dream, by the end we know where we are and have an idea of how we got there and even if the details are fuzzy, the feelings are very much describable and real.

This is a movie that will be referenced in film history, partially for its unique topic and top technical expertise but mostly for the character of Cobb and the emotions involved that take us to a new depth... almost as deep as a dream within a dream within a dream.

Toy Story 3

The Toy Story trilogy bears parallels to The Godfather trilogy and the original Star Wars trilogy. The first installment was a phenomenon, the second was very arguably better than the first, and the third is the weakest in its group but only because it’s a very good film amongst greats. It might not necessarily bring too much new to the table, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a worthy entry.

This movie exists primarily for its conclusion. Pixar is known for character depth and strong emotional ties, but never before have they gone to the level that they do here. Then again, never before have they developed characters over the course of two films, let alone three. The fact that these stories correlate with the maturation of a young boy makes them unlike any other animated franchise, or probably any franchise for that matter. The sequels are not simply set up and motivated by plot but by the characters.

This is a coming of age story about the episodes of life. For toys that means a greater distance between them and their owners. Woody’s issue of being replaced by Buzz in the first episode suddenly seems very mild. From the beginning, it’s established that the tone is darker with the realization that many of our beloved supporting plastic cast members are no longer members of Andy’s toy chest. In a scene near the end, that ominous tone reaches a point so intense that dare I say it’s the most memorable and powerful moment in the entire series.

The downsides to this film include the plotline being undeniably recycled from Toy Story 2, just simply adapted to fit a new scenario. You’ll notice parallels with some new characters to older characters. Many of the interest hooking mishaps come as no surprise and feel as if they more or less are inserted to create a story as opposed to being driven by characters and circumstances as they were in previous episodes. Many of the same emotions from Toy Story 2 recur in this one. The main one being the need for these toys to always be loved by an owner and the temptation to give in to a less valuable but more permanent substitute. Formerly, it involved Woody becoming a collector’s item. This time it involves the group searching for belonging within the context of a day care hierarchy.

But alas, the tricks this movie employs still work, even if they don’t have the same charm as before. The filmmakers found an incredible way to wrap up the material. To describe it as moving is not enough. The depth that this denouement goes to is iconic. It may not have the same literary clout as more recent Pixar films, but the emotions carry it through.

Cyrus

The beauty of Cyrus is its ability to take a premise that has been achieved before in more contrived and artificial manners and give it a sense of verisimilitude. The laughs are not necessarily "roll on the floor" kind of laughs because they are not set up in the way most movies set them up. They are fused with real development and real emotion.

The actors will be recognized most for selling their small scale reactions and intriguing us in the process but the Duplass brothers deserve ample credit for their style which provides an allowance for improvisational responses. Rather than just create an outline though, they write a full script then allow for the improv to compliment it. Given their previous work, and now this little gem, their method seems to work very well as their writing lays down the foundation of the characters and their development but is still open to input that will enhance the realism.

This movie is all about the normal American. It's focus is not on the drama but on the lack of it. It considers the desire and need for comfort, enjoyment, and uninterrupted companionship in those moments between all the points of stress. Each character has their path that makes them happy and the conflict simply comes along when they are held back from that path. It's appropriate for that is the way of life for the average person and films are not usually about truly average sort of people, just about those with average lives. The characters struggled but they dealt the way we all deal and gave off the impression that they wanted to enjoy life and did everything in their power to do so.

Fascinatingly and oddly enough, the film could also be described in a manner contrary than what I have already done. For there is drama and it is dealt with in extremes at times. The story ultimately becomes one major stress point as the characters deal with their conflicts in a complicated manner. What's important though is that we don't come away from the experience feeling that anything has been complicated or dramatized for our sake. Yet, I would hardly call it slice of life for it's not that clean. It's more like a bulging lump that got craftily sculpted into something wonderfully aesthetic. The structure is tidy enough but only because we deem it so, just as we do with all memorable events.

I hope and anticipate the Duplass brothers to one day be a force to be reckoned with but only if they avoid seeing themselves as such. They are character-centric not only in their writing but in the way they direct their films. The storyline in Cyrus was relatively simple, but one day these guys will take their methods and stumble upon a story where the stakes are much higher and when they do it will indeed be something grand.

Winter's Bone

The character of Ree is something to behold. To see the world she lives in will astound you enough, let alone how she manages to live in it. She is mighty and fierce but yet so human. She does not back down even though she often can't handle the fight. She is naive perhaps, but if she wasn't then she wouldn't be a believable 17-year-old.

Her future has very little promise. She is left with a mentally invalid mother and two younger siblings to raise. Her initial desire to join the army establishes a vague notion that she has aspirations for her life, but more importantly it solidifies the commitment she is willing to make to help her family. By the end of the ordeal that is the plot of "Winter's Bone", her path becomes more uncertain than ever. She says to her brother and sister, "I would be lost without the weight of you two on my back." That phrase resonates with you and couldn't be anymore accurate (or unsubtle). She is someone who knows nearly nothing else in life but surviving and helping her siblings survive. But is determined to do those things right and well in a community where so much is wrong.

This character is truly a tribute to those youth whose lives are in some way restricted by their habitat or any circumstances beyond their control. The backbone and discipline they have is both astounding and heartbreaking. Jennifer Lawrence knows the age of her character and plays her accordingly with the appropriate amount of wariness but yet youthful optimism. She gives us hope for the character's future based on her determination but yet leaves us with uncertainty towards the stability of that hope in the years to come.

The plot to "Winter's Bone", while substantial enough and full of intensity at moments, really doesn't do much for the film with its disappointing lack of compelling mystery that you would expect given the premise. It winds up playing a supporting role with its partially unmotivated pacing that seems to do little but continue to further the story in an adequately efficient, even if not preferable, manner. The ending will intrigue you but the journey there just isn't as memorable.

What you will take away from the film is a look at the world Bree is confined to and her ability to stay afloat in it. Unfortunately, this is a story that is built to be driven by both plot and character but only achieves one of the two.

Iron Man 2

It is harsh, inappropriate, and perhaps a bit exaggerated to compare this sequel to the likes of the third installment in the Spider-Man franchise, but I couldn't help but think of how both just seem to deflate any momentum their potential sagas have going. The difference is that while "Spider-Man 3" was over done and downright laughable at times, "Iron Man 2"is just simply... done. There is little to hate about the film, but not much to really like.

This installment lacks the episodic quality most superhereo films require. There is too much downtime and too few points of interest to allow for a wide enough landscape to justify the two hours worth of material. After the exhilarating sense of discovery we experienced on the first film, the sequel needs some emotional draw and high risk scenarios. By the time you reach the super charged final battle sequence it is simply too little, too late.

The film also seems to assume that everyone who saw the original installment stayed past the credits to see Samuel L. Jackson's cameo. The introduction of Nick Fury is nonexistent and it comes off as mildly silly to have this character with an eye-patch (however cool it may look) suddenly come into the scene if you are unfamiliar with the background, which for the most part, I am. The beauty of the original was its accessiblity to the masses who aren't familiar with the lore of Iron Man, but this installment lacks that same quality.

The menace that was Obadiah in the original is not given an adequate replacement. Mickey Rourke serves well as Whiplash but the role is reduced to a minimal two main sequences. Justin Hammer is played well by Sam Rockwell but his character's antics and goals are kind of silly and don't really raise the stakes very high. Also, isn't Natasha suppose to become Black Widow or something? Is there not suppose to be a hint that she's going to go through a transformation of some sort? I'm not even sure who Black Widow is but I kind of expected to get some sort of nod in that general direction. That kind of disappointed me. Like I said, I know nothing about the lore of the comics, so forgive me if I had inappropriate expectations.

It's a worthy enough sequel that doesn't carry the franchise forward very much, but also doesn't really hinder the potential for an Iron Man 3.

Valentine's Day

I think it was an anomaly that I enjoyed this movie. Since I actually screened it on Valentine's Day, maybe I was just in the right mood for something to celebrate the holiday with. It doesn't really embody the meaning of the holiday that it snags its title from very well but it satisfies on a superficial level and that seemed to have been enough to work for me.

Most formulaic romantic comedies tend to have only a handful of interesting peaks to create the skeleton that furthers the story, with the meat, more often than not, tending to be nothing but puny fluff. But what makes Valentine's Day interesting, is that it has about a dozen storylines going on at once, so there really is no time for moments of pure fluff. Almost every scene is forced to serve a purpose or else there won't be a chance for the story to play out. It's as if 8 or 10 different films are combined into one digestible whole to spare us the gruesome filler of wannabe comedy.

That's not to say that any or all of the plots are even all that interesting. The cleverest and most charming would be the one with Anne Hathaway and Topher Grace (there are way too many well-known actors in this movie to bother citing character names... in fact the characters probably should have just been named after the actors) as a couple only 2 weeks into their relationship. The most hollow would be the one with Emma Roberts and Carter Jenkins as a teenage couple planning to give up their virginity during lunch hour on a school day. Surprise: mishaps occur and it doesn't work out so they decide to hold off. The consolation: "At least we can make out."

There are plenty of cliche moments, some slightly more deserved than others, but some of the dialogue plays out fairly decently. The smartest thing that writer Kathrine Fugate did was intertwine these stories in as many possible places to the point that I think it kept me distracted enough to avoid cynical developments. I was too busy piecing together the stories in my head. But the scenes are organized intuitively enough. Quite often I found myself trying to remember what was going on in the storyline of a character related to one on display when all of a sudden, there they were in the next scene! Also, the transitions between plotlines were fairly smooth and allowed for things to progress relatively well. On an interesting note, Taylor Swift showed some promising acting chops as a ditzy high school blonde.

I'll probably never watch this movie again. There is nothing to gain from ever watching it again. None of the many stories are very well developed to sustain me another time through. But it worked well the first time. Valentine's Day seems to have been made simply to provide couples a holiday-relevant option at the movie theatre and the chance to go "Ohh, it's *insert celebrity*!" on more occasions in one sitting than ever before. But if you are seeing it post-February 14th, then do not necessarily count on a favorable experience.

Dear John

I really felt this movie desired to say something profound. Particularly as the ending didn't seem to specifically aim for a sentimental and teary-eyed moment as other films based on Nicholas Sparks books have done. Actually, I'll be more specific and call out "A Walk to Remember" for its watered down, flat, pathos-centered denouement. Even the very well handled adaptation of "The Notebook" sought to create some waterworks in its final moments, but that movie earned the right for that opportunity. But "Dear John" aims to end on a more thoughtful note about the timing of relationships in our lives and the affect of those timings. It wants to leave us pondering the "what if's" of life and how it's never too late to bring them back into play. The problem is that we aren't provided a story with enough depth to fully support these themes.

I was very thankful not to see the conventional third act that is present in movies like "The Proposal" or "A Walk to Remember" even if the rest of the movie plays out in a typical manner. The opening voiceover and montage is very effective, but any momentum you have coming off of it is killed by a rather lame inciting incident. The characters proceed to fall in love over the course of a couple weeks. Though they do have a slight argument when Savannah proposes that John's dad might have autism (why this wouldn't have been an fairly logical hypothesis to John, given his dad's behavior, I dont know), but they overcome this and begin a pen pal relationship when John goes abroad with the Army Special Forces.

9/11 happens and John decides to extend his time in the army. Consequentially, Savannah argues the decision claiming that she should have a say in the matter. But at this point these characters have only spent a couple weeks together in person so how can either really claim to have a decent stake in the other's decisions?

John reenlists and ends up spending the next 6 or 7 years in the army. All the while whatever longing these two have for each other is not truly illustrated. The movie plays out as if these are characters that have lived a chunk of their life together and are trying to hold on to it when the focus needs to be more on a longing for the potential they have for a relationship and the desire to carry out that potential. (For more on this, see "Atonement" [2007])

At one point it seems as if the script is going to perform a pleasant trick on us and demonstrate that it's really about something other than these supposedly star-crossed lovers, but then that excitement tapers off and the movie walks back into being more of what we expected it to be. I was very excited though to see that it wasn't trying to indulge me superficially during the last half hour or so. The lone tearful scene was well earned, even if not built up to its fullest.

This film didn't so much disappoint me as it did just fail to fully satisfy me. It at least wanted to be something with meaning and purpose, and that I must be thankful for because there are so many stories put into production that lack that quality.

The Lovely Bones

Before seeing "The Lovely Bones", I thought that, perhaps, all the negative reviews were a result of misunderstood subject matter. Maybe it was too original for people. Maybe it didn't resemble any of the conventions they anticipated it to and so they simply rebelled against wrapping their mind around it. And then I saw the movie and realized there is nothing to be misunderstood when you simply can't understand the film in the first place.

I've become accustomed to long movies from Peter Jackson, but at a mere 2 hours and 15 minutes the Subjective Time in this one is by far the longest. The movie is poorly structured without any sort of discernible arch... or at least one that I cared about. It's like the whole thing is cut up into sequences and scenes that were assembled apart from the whole and then strung together by a few very weak threads. The shifts and switchbacks are jarring and untamed. I read the book and I don't know if I could tell you what this movie is about. I found myself in my own "In-between" as I tried to decide whether it was worth trying to enjoy or should I just give up.

Part of the brilliance of "King Kong" (2005) was that it was a massive film that was given a level tenderness. It took its time. Everything could be absorbed appropriately and the emotions ran high. Jackson, however, takes a major step backwards as "The Lovely Bones" seems to have been treated as if it was established as a tender story and he desired to make it massive. It's excessively stylized and overdramatized for something with the level of tragedy and humanity it's suppose to have. None of the emotions that it wanted me to attain were earned.

For a character-driven story, the characters have very little presence. This is a family tragedy without the family. There is no sense of the supposed coping that happens. This should have been about a family's journey towards a world without one of their own and the connections that result. There should have been despair and heart ache over the life the characters longed for and wanted but were denied at no fault of their own. Instead I ached for the movie I longed for but was denied at the fault of the filmmakers.

I will forever believe this is a story that could make a great film. In this case, it didn't happen. Nowhere close, even if it does have good moments. I will stand for the visuals in this film. The effects are good and the cinematography rather splendid (although unfortunately the editing is too annoying to fully enjoy either). Much of the imagery is beautiful. The opening scenes play out effectively enough for the most part, particularly when Susie realizes what's happened to her as she sees her murderer in a bathtub with her own blood everywhere. Maybe I'm just thankful that the scene took place while I could still digest what was happening.

Unfortunately by the time Susie's sister, Lindsey, breaks into the killer's lair, a scene that on its own achieves a desired level of suspense, things were just too awry and I had simply stopped caring at a point about 45 minutes sooner. Alternatively, I listened to the rumbling of "Avatar" playing in the adjacent theatre, wishing that I had instead chosen to see it for a 4th viewing.

The Road

This is a difficult experience. It's a disturbing disaster film because you don't actually see the disaster. This brilliantly focuses the story into a character-driven experience. What haunts you is the unknown, but what consumes you is the hope and love the two main characters share. All this is attributable to Cormac McCarthy, but to have it actually translated onto the screen requires some skill, particularly from the cast.

The performances are what sell it. Viggo Mortensen as "Man" and Kodi Smit-McPhee as "Boy" avoid all of the cliches that could have cheapened the experience. Mortensen gives off a hint of determination while drowning in desparation that is at its peak in flashback scenes with his wife, "Woman" (played by Charlize Theron). Smit-McPhee plays a boy that is unlike any child in any other film. While he is open and optimistic to everything unfamiliar, he is also skeptical and fearful, because this man is all he has ever known. He is of another world because he knows nothing of our world.

What ruins the experience is the pacing. Anything based on work from McCarthy must be given time to be absorbed. McCarthy writes in prose and avoids certain punctuation for the purpose of being more direct and using "simple declarative sentences." He believes in not "blocking the page up with weird little marks." So why block this film up with more cuts than what it needs? To be simple is to be real and to be real requires as few edits as possible.

Director John Hillcoat and editor John Gregory should have learned a lesson from the Coen brothers (a.k.a. Roderick Jaynes) and slowed the tempo for this movie down. It might not be fair of me to hold the same standards for "The Road" as "No Country for Old Men," but the attitude and rhythm of the books (or at least the pieces I have read of them) are very much similar. The Coen brothers were successful because they submitted completely to McCarthy's narrative tone. Hillcoat and Gregory, on the other hand, are a bit more traditional in their approach and it clashes with their story.

Nevertheless, the visuals, the writing, and the acting all come together and manage to bring this collaborative struggle between a father and son to the screen and truly give a sense of each being "the other's world entire." I have not read the book, but after seeing this film I am now inspired to and know that I must. Given that, I render the film a success.

Avatar

It did not take long for a general opinion to form stating that the script to Avatar (for lack of a more common term) "sucks." It became a cliche for most cinephiles when discussing the film. Phrases resembling "if only he had paid more attention to the story" were heard throughout America during discussions amongst students in the classroom, employees at the water cooler, and fanboys on blogs. It was held against Cameron that he "stole" his story from Pocahantas (a rather lame accusation). I'm going to venture to say that Avatar, while lacking in total originality, is nevertheless an authentic experience that does not sell itself short.

Technically, the film is astounding. It's solid in every aspect of production and post-production. There is little one can say to refute that. Most importantly, everything comes together to create the needed emotion to make it all work. From the destruction of the massive "hometree" to the moments when Jake is gasping desperately for oxygen, I cared about these characters and what happened to them. No matter how stock they might be, they were well portrayed by the actors and the film did everything to earn the amount of care I had. Zoe Saldana in particular beautifully portrays her character through her grace and athleticism.

This is an outstanding film and there is no such thing as an outstanding film with a bad story. Everything about it is its story, from the way its shot and edited to the way its acted and scored. For every piece of dialogue that might be considered a bit stale I can point out a narrative-driven, lush visual that nullifies it. The use of avatars by the characters underlines a very human desire to reside within a body greater than that in which we do. It is an allegory for the idea that we are not at home as humans and that there is something beyond these physcical bodies we reside in. The world of Pandora is untainted and in wonderful harmony. A beautiful note is that it is a place without religion in the sense that we think of it. All of its creations are unified in recognizing a single omniscient deity.

It truly speaks volumes for Cameron's directorial abilities when complaints about the script run are as wild as they are. I must state that I believe the story to be good, even if it is older and used. I can point out several films from 2009 whose scripts truly left me shaking my head. Some of which I saw and others I did not even need to (unfair, but generally true). But Avatar is a film with a story that works well enough to support a fascinatingly original world with very spiritual themes.

I usually avoid dating my reviews and prefer to express opinions that could apply to any point in time relative to a release, but given how exceptional this film is and how exceptional it's been deemed by the worldwide Box Office intake, I thought for the sake of discussion it was worth noting the the opinions that have developed.

A Single Man

To describe the main character as "single" perhaps brings about the same connotation associated with a facebook relationship status. But to describe George (Colin Firth) in such a way, while true, would be trivial. He is a man apart from this world entirely, seeming to feel as if he has no place.

The main course of action takes place over the span of a single day. George's last day. With the death of his partner, he is consumed by melancholy and dreads mornings (although apparently this was the case even before his lover died). He puts up a facade at work and amongst friends but it seems that there is an internal cause beyond his widowed state that is never quite fully brought to the surface. As a homosexual he considers himself a minority, but in 1962 he is not a minority that is feared. He is one that is, as he describes in one of his classes, invisible.

Throughout the movie, George throughly buys into this idea. People all around him are reaching out, inviting him to do this or that or simply to be with him, but he stays away from any of that. A visual used throughout has George drowning as he tosses and turns in a large body of water, unable to break free. What finally pulls him out and allows him to find a breath of air is one of his students. They spend an evening together after running into each other (although in fairness the student was looking for him) at a bar and George finds friendship and bliss in this outing. He experiences a rare "moment of clarity."

The screenplay is insightful and poignant and Colin Firth will likely land a nod for Best Actor from the Academy. He convinces us that he has a great sorrow but that it almost seems bottled, for his character faces internal struggles. The problem is that we never get a chance to dive fully and completely into these sorrows. The narrative arch feels restrained by the 101 min running time.

Many of the visuals are desaturated but obtain their color when George interacts with another person and notices little bits of beauty. There is much to admire about human interaction and George knows it, but yet he avoids camaraderie in much of the film. George is a smart person and I'm convinced that something else that is not hinted at troubled this character.

This film won't ever get a sliver of the amount of mainstream attention as Brokeback Mountain ever got, but it's characters are more convincing. The love they share for another is indeed the love for another human that anyone can share, and not merely lust-based as I'm convinced Ennis and Jack's was. The pain George goes through is universal. I felt it, but not as much as I would have had it been on the screen longer.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

When I see movies, I simply shoot for story's that seem worth telling and one's that seem to be told well. I don't give much thought to the genre or target audience of the film. Thus, I was initially surprised to see several children in the theatre for this movie until I remembered the source material. By the time the end credits were rolling, I wanted to ask the kids in the theatre whether they enjoyed the movie or not. I couldn't help but wonder how I would have felt had I seen it when I was 7, 8, or 9. It would have had an odd effect on me, indeed.

This is not a traditional animated film, even if it does use one of the more traditional forms of animation. It is not always straightforward and direct nor does it even try to keep the senses fully satisfied during every second. In fact, the soundtrack can be very quiet at times with only simple, low dB foley effects added in to what would otherwise be silent stretches with no music to dictate the emotions with. I can imagine that I probably would not have enjoyed it as a child, because my taste was limited to what fulfilled my superficial expectations.

But kids should be taken to see this just so they can experience something different, yet in a familiar format. There is a lot that's expressed with these characters. Much of the narrative deals with finding one's identity. Mr. Fox asks:

"Why a fox? Why not a horse, a beetle, or a bald eagle?"

But nevertheless he is a fox, and in his attempt to live up to his desire of being "fantastic," he does what he does best and hatches up a master plan to steal from some rather mean farmers who in turn seek vengeance. This gets not only Mr. Fox, but the surrounding community running for their lives. Meanwhile, his son deals with insecurity after the arrival of his perfect cousin.

The script is witty, at times hilarious, and layered and Anderson makes nice use of the photography. His quirky direction is fitting to the main idea presented: we are all different, but "there is something fantastic about that." We have our abilities and inabilities and I suppose we can change how we feel about them. In the end, we just are who we are and do what we do and sometimes it might mean that no matter what we do to redeem ourselves, we are just another dead rat behind a Chinese restaurant.