Prometheus

I have something of a soft spot for science fiction and fantasy films. I'm always intrigued by them even if all evidence points to the result being less than stellar. Ridley Scott's Alien is one of the most fundamentally sound science fiction and horror films in existence so naturally it provides lots of intrigue into the happenings of Prometheus knowing that its part of the same franchise. Unlike the Star Wars prequels however, don't expect this to be a game of connect the dots. It successfully stands on its own and creates intrigue with original material.

The title Prometheus of course ties in the Greek titan who was punished for bringing fire to man. In the film, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and the crew of the ship Prometheus travel to a distant moon to discover the origins of mankind, but like the titan of myth they are punished for their well meaning attempt as they discover that the conditions are less than friendly.

The focus on the origin of man rides the line very well between religion and science, even bringing up the two in dialogue and successfully including all audience members by explaining why both sides of the debate should find interest in the endeavor. It reminds me of Brian De Palma's 2000 film Mission to Mars which also attempted to tackle the origin of life on Earth question but did so in a very frustratingly simple way. Prometheus walks on comparable turf with its topic but achieves a higher level of intellect and originality.

Similar to the original Alien film, unanswered questions enhance the mystery however in Prometheus some of the unanswered questions create confusion and frustration. An android named David is probably the most interesting character but his motives are never clear throughout the film. He is played by Michael Fassbender in a soulless manner that is more reminiscent of the replicants in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (supposedly this was Fassbender's intention). It was clear in both Alien and Aliens whether the androids were villainous or helpful but David's actions seem to contradict each other at times and I walked out of the theatre feeling like I never really grasped his nature.

Other behaviors and reactions by characters come off as awkward and illogical, which unfortunately taints the value of the mystery and mythology that the filmmakers are trying to create. It is refreshing that Prometheus requires us to actually digest its material, a far cry from typical summer flicks (especially ones that claim to be the fifth installment of a long franchise), and it leaves us with promise of a sequel that will hopefully present the same thrilling lore with an improved structure.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

For the second time this summer we have a movie with "Part II" in the title. Just goes to show how prevalent franchises have become. However, this time the "Part II" is driven by narrative necessity and not bankability (although it will undoubtedly cash in a fortune). This is by far David Yates' best achievement in the "Potter" series as it maintains a delicate balance between poignant drama and riveting action flick.

Overall though, I have come to the realization that the Potter filmmakers, including "Deathly Hallows: Part II," seem to suffer from a fear of dialogue. Since "Prisoner of Azkaban," this series has omitted enough compelling conversation to fill the Great Hall in Hogwarts. Scenes that carry on for entire chapters have been whittled down to a matter of seconds...the skeleton of the stories has been left in tact but there's very little meat. The most crucial omissions came in "Half-Blood Prince," where we should have been given more knowledge of Voldemort's past than the just the minimum to further the story. I'm not talking 10 or even 5 minutes per conversation here but merely lines that dispersed throughout each film would add tremendous value. Key bits of knowledge that rooted the books so powerfully in my imagination are ignored.

In most cases, spoken exposition should be minimized or heavily disguised in films. However in this instance, you're working from not just a successful book, but the biggest cultural phenomenon of this generation. Wouldn't you think audiences would be willing to offer a little more wiggle room in the amount of expository conversation?

Let's look at this from a relative viewpoint. After 10 years and 8 movies the build to this climax should be unmatched. No other film franchise has endured this many episodes with a single underlying arc like this. The battle between Harry and Voldemort is something that we could foresee from the start. It was destined to happen and we just waited as the pieces fell into place. Nine and a half years later it's here, but it doesn't have the poetic grandeur you would expect from something nearly a decade in the making.

To put it in perspective, the first Harry Potter film was released before the first Lord of the Rings, even if only by a month. At the time I saw it in theatres, my family had yet to purchase a DVD player (we bought one a month later). Also, gas was averaging $1.46/gallon; the dollar was trading stronger than the euro; social networking websites were virtually unknown as friendster and myspace hadn't been launched and facebook was still two years away from being thought of; the New England Patriots would soon pull off their first Super Bowl; and Pluto was still a planet!

Will you be moved to the point of tears or even sobbing? It's likely if you're a fan of the saga. The emotions run high but that's attributable to J.K. Rowling's material more than it is the filmmaking. Like the highly acclaimed "Prisoner of Azkaban," this movie benefits greatly from its source. Unfortunately though, not even the source material is fully utilized. Rowling makes many Christian allusions in her book that are blatantly altered or omitted, such as one line that likened to Harry to a lamb and had no business being changed (I'll leave it at that to avoid spoilers). No matter what your faith may be, these references are of literary value and add tremendous depth to the material.

"Deathly Hallows: Part II" is a solid achievement, probably the best in the franchise but this is a franchise that has only been good and failed to achieve greatness. I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the film series, which is not a position anyone wants their movie to be in. It means that despite my effort and strong desire to love your movie, you didn't quite reach your potential. Much has been accomplished in these nine and a half years, but much has been unfulfilled as well.

P.S. I greatly appreciated the 3D and thought that the depth it created enhanced many of the scenes
P.S.S. I don't think this movie will attain a Best Picture nomination as some predict. I do think it will get nods in Art Direction, Visual Effects, and Makeup (possibly sound too, but those categories can be tough to predict as theatres vary in their sound quality)

Cars 2

Pixar has created a remarkable shift in animation over the course of the last decade. Previous expectations in the medium included simpler writing that relied more on its characters to make an impression and visual artistry to tell most of the story for us. Pitches were made via storyboards rather than treatments. The power lied within the idea and the idea flourished at the hands of the animators (and in the case of the Disney Renaissance era, the music). However, Pixar has built its success in the writing process with strong character-driven works of literature. "Toy Story" became the first animated feature to be nominated for an Original Screenplay Oscar in 1995 and, with "Toy Story 3," 6 of Pixar's last 7 films have had their screenplays nominated for an Oscar. Take a guess at which of their offspring kept it from being a perfect 7 straight?

"Cars" was more along the lines of a film Pixar might have done in the late 90's while they were still testing the waters of feature length CGI animation. Its story had moral value but it just didn't have the literary clout that "Finding Nemo" and "The Incredibles" had established before it. The dialogue wasn't as mature and the emotions weren't as potent. "Cars 2" follows along similar lines and overwhelms us by adapting many elements of our world into the world of the cars. In a casino, the cars are seen rolling a pair of fuzzy dice and in London that big famous clock tower is now called Big Bentley. These bits may be clever and amusing, but it's relatively shallow entertainment. DreamWorks Animation has proven their capability for wit in many films, but only a few of those have stood the test of time.

Amongst Pixar's films, the plot here ranks right behind "The Incredibles" as we get to enjoy an intricately laid out spy thriller but the character development stands dead last. The "Cars" franchise seems to suffer from relatively stock characters. They don't root themselves in our imaginations the way Woody, Buzz, Marlin, Dori, Carl Frederickson, Russell and even Doug the Dog do. Mater takes center stage and he's just as funny as you expect him to be but there is not as much depth to his existence. He is a simple-minded character but so was WALL-E and that didn't stop him from being a complex creation.

The Cars universe takes a few more liberties than Pixar's other formations. Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille explore an aspect of the world but still do it in respect to reality. Real life cars exist for the people and without people why do these cars operate? More specifically, why do they have a need for windows or side mirrors if there are no people in them? Our image and perception of this world is projected into a setting where that image is less fitting. Film critic Richard Roeper poses another question: why are there buildings in this movie? Do the cars live in buildings?

It boils down to the fact that we like cars because they can go faster and do whatever other cool stuff our imagination concocts. This movie delivers on that idea and we get some splendid action scenes, including a very exhilarating opening sequence that is sure to impress. But it's all short-lived. "Cars 2" is fun to watch but there's little to digest afterwards.

The Hangover Part II

The best thing about The Hangover Part II is that it provides us with an appreciation for just how extraordinarily clever and well structured the original was. Think about the premise of the 2009 film (group of guys go to Vegas, drink, wake up the next morning and can't remember anything that happened) and how simple and unimaginative it would sound to you if someone was explaining it without any of the trailers for visual support. Even the title doesn't suggest anything special. Your expectations would have likely landed on the same level of achievement where Part II sits. It is an example of the trap of mediocrity that Part I could have easily fallen into but instead miraculously excelled beyond our wildest imaginations.

The obvious issue is that we're watching the same story unfold with main points of interest running parallel to the first movie. There's the set up where our characters can't remember anything from the night before and they are missing 16-year-old Teddy, who they were suppose to be spending time with simply roasting marshmallows. Immediately they think of the roof, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy (surprise!). They embark on their journey and from there you don't even have to predict what happens because a prediction requires some degree of uncertainty. You can just take the original, which you've watched 10 times already, subtract the tiger, the baby and the cop car, then add a monkey and one interesting car chase sequence and you've got your movie.

I'm not even ashamed to give away certain plot points, like Stu finding himself unwillingly being unfaithful to his fiance with a stripper or Alan revealing that he was the one to accidently drug everyone, because the exact same events already happened the previous time! Speaking of the character Alan, don't expect him to be the comedic hinge this time around. In Part I, his naivety could be relied on for some of the best laughs you can get from a movie because we knew that he didn't know any better (as Stu aptly put: "Don't the beard fool you, he is a child!"), but on this go around he comes off as a jerk most of the time and it taints any of the humor. Chow is another phenomenally entertaining character who is simply stretched thin. Ken Jeong may be brilliant as the character but the script doesn't match up to his delivery.

What's more is the filmmakers even used Bryan Callen, who played Eddie in the first film ("They shot Eddie!"), as an entirely different, and much less memorable, character named Samir. Doesn't that violate some sort of physical law? Just because the setting is in Bangkok doesn't mean it's another universe where people can appear as someone different.

Anything fresh about The Hangover Part II is far and few between. It violates our suspension of disbelief by asking us to believe these characters went through this event twice. It fails to not only do much of anything new, but it fails miserably at the exact same tricks that worked so well before. For instance, in the latter half of the movie, Stu proceeds to serenade us again with a summary of their plight but his lyrics have followed suit with the rest of the writing. The tagline recited by several characters states that "Bangkok has them now..." and for all I'm concerned it can keep them.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I am willing to put up with this once. If this series is going to continue, the inevitable truth is that Cpt. Jack needs to be phased out. He is a character that will hold a place in cinematic history (thanks to Johnny Depp's brilliant interpretation) not just as the most famous pirate on film, but as one of the best comedic characters of all time. However, there is still a limit to my tolerance of his antics. He can only get away with managing to single-handedly tie up a group of British soldiers so many times. Without a fresher set of characters to carry us through, this series will become exhausting. Some will say that it already has, but I was willing to endure this 4th installment with its enjoyable use of mythology and a few new set pieces.

Rob Marshall takes the reins from Gore Verbinski and brings a slightly fresher take. Had he done "Curse of the Black Pearl" I'm not certain that his style would have made that film as appealing as what it was, but now that the franchise has been firmly established this became more of an exercise in plug-and-play than artistic creation. Marshall's work ranges from the 2002 Best Picture recipient, "Chicago," to the flop that was "Nine" in 2009. Fortunately for Marshall he doesn't have to worry about a flop here, at least financially.

I did miss the usually gorgeous cinematography of Dion Beebe, who has worked with Marshall on his past films. Darius Wolski's work is appreciated as it has been in all the previous 'Pirates'...but I feel that Marshall's potential as a director is restrained a bit without Beebe (who worked on "Green Lantern" last year instead).

Marshall did, however, bring along Penelope Cruz, one of his actresses from "Nine" (and one of that film's Oscar nominations), who really adds some energy to the show (and Jack's libido) as Angelica. Much like her Oscar-winning role in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," she is a very intimidating figure but yet manages to swing it in a humorous manner. Needless to say, I'd put my money on Angelica to take out Elizabeth Swann in a brawl.

I appreciated the use of mermaids as very deadly creatures, for it aligns more accurately with myth, whereas most film portrayals go down a docile path. Instead of collecting human gadgets as Ariel did (I secretly wish there had been some sort of partial reference to Ariel in the course of the movie), these creatures collect the humans themselves by shooting seaweed reminiscent of Spider-Man's web and then dragging their victims underwater.  One of our side stories features a bond between a mermaid captured by Blackbeard's crew and Philip, a missionary also being held captive by Blackbeard. Philip brings with him lots of talk about Christianity, which is something interestingly new in the previously religious-free 'Pirates' universe, but on the whole his character serves the story well.

At times, "On Stranger Tides" seems to be lackluster, as if it exists just because it can (and to make insane profits). Even Geoffrey Rush's Barbosa has far less presence as a character, whereas previously he was a highlight. There's a good amount of work to be done if Disney is going to manage to create a new trilogy here. 'Pearl' gave us a lot to build from for future films, but 'Tides' doesn't exactly provide a foundation for the future nor does it leave us thirsty for much more. Expect a 5th movie, but unless major restructuring begins to occur, pray to avoid a 6th.

Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is a very thoughtful piece of work that makes you acutely aware of your existence. It's very easy, especially in youth, to forget that existence on this planet is terminable. It's the only way to truly live for we would drive ourselves crazy if we constantly concerned ourselves with death. It therefore creates a great deal of friction to be thinking about the impending doom of these characters, who are cloned only to have their organs harvested in early adulthood.

The whole time, I couldn't help but wonder why on earth the characters would not just run away? Once they knew their allotted purpose in life and once they left the preparatory school they grew up in, what kept them from running off into the world and establishing an alternate identification? It's rather clear that they, as clones, have the same feelings that "originals" have and the same need to find a place in the world so why would they conform to a system that suppresses everything.

They take pride in successfully donating, often measuring how well they have done after their first or second or even third donation (one thing that confused me is that it was never addressed which organs were being donated because in reality that would determine how many donations you survived). They worry about "completing," or dying, but don't seem to fight for living. It's not until the end when Kathy (Carey Mulligan) expresses that "we all complete" that I finally connected with the mentality that allowed these characters to accept their fate so willingly. It's true that we must all accept our inevitable death but personally I couldn't do that unless I knew I gave every shot I had at life.

A key objective for the characters becomes the desire to attain a deferral. The very goal of obtaining a "deferral," which would allow them to put off their organ donations until later in life, proves their want for more than what has been allotted to them. It's frustrating how there seems to be no hint of resistance.While this story probably comes off beautifully on the pages of a book, when you see the characters on screen it's more difficult to not scream for them to do something to fight back! It pains me to say that even Michael Bay's The Island took a similar premise and had its characters fight for survival (no, that doesn't make it a better film).

Never Let Me Go will have you contemplating your mortality in a very thoughtful manner. It's a very interesting coming of age story that for me is simply restrained by an inability to fully buy into the lack of a natural drive for survival. Then again, I suppose one can argue that the characters are clones and therefore don't behave entirely natural, but that's just making up explanations.

Black Swan

"Black Swan" is to Swan Lake what "Shakespeare in Love" is to Romeo and Juliet. In both, we have a character striving to succeed at their art and in the process lives a life that parallels their work. Shakespeare's work became a result of his life (according to the film) but Nina's life results from her work. We are essentially watching an adaptation of Swan Lake with characters that happen to be performing Swan Lake. The story is taken to more depth and explores the idea of obsession, not simply career obsession but an obsession of breaking free from confinement. That is the journey that our heroine embarks on.

Nina is restrained professionally, emotionally, sexually and even physically in many ways. She lives with her mother and sleeps in a room saturated in pink and suffocated by stuffed animals. Her mother (an excellent Barbara Hershey) cares for her as if she is still a teenager. Nina seems to exemplify innocence in every aspect. She is soft spoken and often submissive. Although she says that she is not a virgin, it's reasonable to believe that perhaps she is not entirely truthful on the subject.

Natalie Portman is ideal for this sort of over-the-top performance. Nina is a well of emotions ready to erupt and Portman manages to come off as dramatic but yet subdued. However, Aronofsky is the true star here. His visual style utilizes tight camera work on Portman, disabling our ability to know what's going on around her. It's often dizzying and claustrophobic. We feel lost and absorbed into this world much like our main character. She is career-driven, gradually getting lost in her ambitions, and we are engulfed in that obsession with her.

Additionally, we get a fascinating glance at the world of ballet and the daily grind that the performers must endure. It's not made out to be something beautiful for Aronofsky doesn't allow us that luxury. It's more of a grueling career and a way to make a living. Any young girls hoping to become ballerinas will likely reconsider if shown "Black Swan."

This is a remarkably intelligent film. Some might be distracted by the elements of horror and sensuality, writing them off as cheap instruments, but they are merely the surface of a film that provides ample beauty in the form of a dark and uncertain world. Like a good ballet, "Black Swan" will leave you replaying the scenes over and over again. Everything builds at an accelerating rate to a finale that will have you on the edge of your seat. The film's final line can be used to describe itself as well: perfection.

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.