War Horse (2011)

A quick perusal of my top 100 films can tell you any number of things about me. For starters, that I have an unabashed love for all things Kurosawa. Then again, spending five minutes talking with me about movies could easily tell you that one. However, if you were to dig a little deeper. To seek out the connections and overlaps between many of the relating films, one constant should become entirely evident. I love me some good ol' fashion epics.

Throw a group of characters together, stretch their journey through life and war over two and half plus hours and low and behold, I'll be waiting at the end hands ready in applause position. So imagine my excitement when I found out that Spielberg was set to deliver such an experience. Let alone one covering one of the most oft ignored and yet still powerful wars in history, World War I.

From the sweeping landscapes of old English farm land to the mud enriched, rat infested, world of trench warfare, War Horse takes us on the kind of journey one might imagine would be found in the likes of a Disney film grown up. Joey, our titular horse, whose journey through a war with which he had nothing to do is sentimental to the highest degree, and yet at the same time strikes subtle and yet resonating chords on the true nature of war.

War Horse boasts what I might argue is some of Spielberg's finest directing moments in over half a decade. Not least of which is found in Spielberg's craft at creating a violent war film without much of the violence. In a way that would make Pulp Fiction era Tarantino proud, Spielberg creates graphic violence through carefully place camera movements. The substitution of imagery for actual bloodshed is a particularly nice decision - as evident in the riderless horses in one early battle sequence. This decision presents something I've been asking Hollywood to deliver for years - intensity without blatancy.

Of course for a generation like myself which has been born and raised on that graphical conclusion to events, these might leave some wanting. But I would like to hope that deep down one can admire the craft in coordinating and filming such scenes.

Still, where War Horse succeeds in visual poetry, it falters in a revolving cast of characters. Like many epics, War Horse deals with a wide array of characters coming and going, and as such the time for whole and complete character building is often left to the cutting room floor. Take for example Captain Nicholls and Major Stewart, played by the equally brilliant Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch respectively, who give off so much charisma in their short screen time that they still leave you longing for their return. Not to mention the sadly underused Eddie Marsan in the generally thankless role of Sgt. Fry towards the film's climax.

So in substitute for the revolving characters we are effectively given human bookends to Joey's journey. In this we find ourselves with Albert (Jeremy Irvine). The young, poor farm hand son of a perpetually drunken father (Peter Mullan) and fiery mother (Emily Watson). Albert provides much of the necessary scenes which help Joey build the skill set he needs to survive so many of the sequences he deals with in war. At the same time, Albert is also given a journey of his own to survive. Including a thrilling battle sequence - by far the film's most violent - as he seeks out his long embattled friend, Joey.

The rest of the cast is a wide assortment of "hey, it's um that guy" talent who deliver time and time again. But no matter what is thrown at us, there is never a doubt that this film is entirely Joey's film. For he is the heart of the matter. He is the life blood through which each character is given a reason for being. The film thrives and falls on the strength of his shoulders. Luckily for us all, he is made of stuff stronger than steel.

OVERALL SCORE: 8.00 / 10

Film Credits:
Directed By Steven Spielberg
Screenplay By Lee Hall and Richard Curtis
Novel By Michael Morpurgo

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn (2011)

If Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as a frail and uninspiring revival of a series that lead many to question the need for throwbacks to its origin, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn is an equally worded title that hits back with a whopping "Indiana Jones style adventures will never die." And with the ever increasing quality of motion capture cinema, this style of film may just be here to stay.

Having not grown up with the Tintin stories, I went in to Spielberg's latest family-ready adventure a bit skeptical of my ability to latch on to the story. Sure, I had more than my fair share of blogging buddies ready at the shot of the pistol to sound off with any number of Tintin related facts or stories that I worried I may be overwhelmed. But Spielberg handles the transition for long time fans and newcomers with great precision. For those new on the scene, the core cast of characters are introduced. These introductions are swift, to the point, and lack an obtrusive nature films of its like often fall into.

Of course that's partially because none of these characters are particularly dynamic. Sure, they're a little rough around the edges - which goes a long way in making them believable and enjoyable - but by and large they each fall on one side or the other of a particular goal and its easy to determine which side of the fence they fall on. For a family film with great ambition this is understandable, and vintage Spielberg. After all it gives Spielberg the opportunity to explore this animated world in which he and his crew brought to life. And explore they do.

With some stunningly choreographed visual spectacles and action scenes that'll have you working a death grip on your arm rests, Tintin uses the three-dimensional world in which it operates to masterful success. In fact, I must say that remains my favorite component of the entire film. Granted that may be telling of the film's lacking in other areas, but by and large the action sequences more than make up for the other misgivings. I honestly felt like I was a kid, back at disneyworld, experiencing one of those simulation rides (e.g. the Star Wars Tours ride) all over again. They were eventful, constantly moving in a variety of directions, and full of sequences that made you want to jump up and yell "yes!" Of course you shouldn't, but that's because you're in a room filled with other people and that would be awkward.

But speaking of jumping up and yelling yes, how's about a big round of applause for the year of Andy Serkis. If they awarded a Most Valuable Actor (MVA) award at the Oscars each year, I believe you'd be hard pressed to find another candidate. Between this and Rise of the Planet of the Apes he has become living proof that even with just motion capture at your disposal, you can still act the hell out of a film.


Overall Score: 8.00/10

Credits:
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish
Comic Book Series By: Hergé

Hugo (2011)

Hugo has everything you need to make a classic movie that critics will eat up like kids at a candy store. You've got a director everyone admires, a cast full of solid character actors, a story about a child's coming of age, and to top it all off it's a throwback film to the dawn of cinema itself. Don't even get me started on the beautiful Paris setting, the amazing set designs, and the inclusion of one of my favorite directors of all time. So why is it that I couldn't shake the desire to pull a Maxwell Smart and say "missed it by that much" the second the credits started to roll?

I've spent a long time mulling it all over. Why didn't a film with everything I'd want in a movie not end up being everything I wanted in a movie? After all, I did everything exactly the way I'd always dreamed of doing it. I kept my knowledge of the film's plot low. I read minimal reviews. I didn't let any positive or negative hype impact me. I kept my expectations perfectly in check. I went into this film in a manner I wish I went into every film. But in the words of Jake Holman "what the hell happened?"

Hugo is a very good film. It is the kind of very good film you wish you could get more people to want to see. Not only because it is good but because it has the ability to open people up to something that so many of them vehemently close themselves off to. It longs to bring out the passionate nostalgia in any moviegoer, and inspire those who have historically remained in the dark. And it interweaves the history of film around the tale of an orphan child wonderfully.

Yet throughout the film I failed to create an earnest connection with any of the core characters. Despite all the sentimentality laden throughout, Hugo often felt as if it settled for melodrama when honest drama would have been more than enough. No more so than in the dealings with the film's titular character, Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield - greatest name ever?).

On multiple occasions I found myself rolling my eyes during the first act of the film as the foundation for our connection with Hugo is built. At first I didn't think much of it, but as the film continued, the plot unfolded, and I started to see the world around Hugo expand, I began to realize just how tough that missed connection made enjoying the film. After all, each main character - in their own way - is an extension of the base Hugo caricature.

Each of them is longing for something missing in their life. Most ostensibly this is found in the form of their place in the greater part of the functioning world, but more immediately they long for family, romance, escape, and the past. A remembrance of better times and a hope for more of them. The basic components of life so many of us take for granted in our everyday dealings with one another. These are holes left unfilled for many of these characters and Hugo's journey provides each of them - himself most of all - the opportunity to attain the very thing, or things, they're missing.

Without that heavy bond with Hugo, the entire tale at large is difficult to bond with. The scenes are there but my heart was never with them. From Papa Georges missing past to Isabelle's (Hermione Granger Lite) adventure seeking to the Station Inspector's effective representation of a future Hugo without those around him. All of the pieces were there but the puzzle never felt complete. So when it came time for my fellow movie goers to whip out a Kleenex and dab away the welling in their eyes, I found myself clean dry.

Hugo has a lot going for it, and those capable of latching onto the characters will likely find the journey rewarding of the highest order. For my own part, I found myself wrapped up in the world but fighting an uphill battle for the characters. On balance I still recommend it, but for now my appreciation for it outweighs my enjoyment of it.

Overall Score:7.50

Film Credits:
Directed by Martin Scorcese
Written by John Logan
Based on the Novel "The Invention of Hugo Cabret" by Brian Selznick

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Top 100 Films: #2
Overall Rating: 10/10

To try and summarize the importance of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly on the evolution of my perspective of film as more than purely an American based art form would be in vain even at my most articulate. Simply put, this film put the notion of greatness into my own zeitgeist and sent me down a path from which there was no turning back. It introduced me to foreign cinema, stylistic direction, the epic, classic movies, westerns, and was one close up draw jump from here to Kurosawa.

But no need to go there now, this post is about the mesmerizing style of Leone, catapulted by the charismatic crook Eli Wallach, ignited by the dynamic villainy of Lee Van Cleef, and launched into the stratosphere of legendary by the smooth, timeless Clint Eastwood. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (GBU) is a film unphased by aging or the growing trends of high octane entertainment. It survives the decades because it shaped the films of each of them. As influential as a film would ever dare be, and the kind of movie you can watch over and over again and constantly get something more out of.

It is perhaps best said that GBU is a film of nonstop minor escalation and deescalation wrapped around a larger, ever escalating primary plot. With each passing turn, each down time, each move, the viewer is privy to new insights to the characters, new ways of viewing the western as Leone viewed it, and somber morality tales to interspersed throughout the lot. The backdrop of the Civil War reminds us that violence is more than the never ending bloodbath of nightmares, it is the revelation of a man's inner being. It strips away at the heart of them, and delivers unto us their true form.

Are they a sultan of greed? A swindler of life? Or perhaps a compassionate loner with eyes full of gold? Maybe they're just a lowly captain tired of the endless nothingness at costs we dare not dream to imagine. Such is the world of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. And with that you mind find it hard to imagine, this is one hell of a fun ride.

GBU starts of slow. Three scenes, three introductions, three foundations for the entire film, with each character defined for us in their most basic sense. After all, once we know what we're dealing with, all that is left to us is the journey, right? That's where Leone gets his pay off. That's where he truly makes his mark. For Leone takes these characters to their brink of their archetypes, and in each shows us something more raw. Of course, there's no denying Tuco is Leone's caricature masterpiece. He's the full realization of the byproduct of such a world as the one Leone examines through this film's near three hour runtime.  The world of the west, put so eloquently by Tuco himself creates two kinds of people - priests or thieves, and those who opt for the inbetween pay the price.

So it is perhaps most noteworthy that while Tuco himself succumbs to the primal nature for greed, his compatriot in fate, The Man with No Name/Blondie, is a more subtle, and intriguingly complicated man. For without much thought you could easily label him as little more than another Tuco himself. He lies, steals, but above it all shows an awareness for the world in which he resides. As if he is playing his own game with those around him, the prize of which often comes out to be their life. In many respects he is a gatekeeper, a judge who acts in favor of the better man, but only when that man chooses to act so. That doesn't mean he won't drop you off at the next desert if he feels you've served your purpose. It just means that when push comes to shove, he'll always plan for the upper hand.

As a villain, Angel Eyes' iconic status rests entirely on the cold, sly snarl of Lee Van Cleef. Every bit the soldier he pretends to be, Angel Eyes is not a man of great wit or charisma, but instead relies on pure, unadulterated dedication to the task at hand. Once his direction has been set, one would need an army to deter him from his inevitable course. And for that reason, his sinister nature comes out in full. He'll torture a man as soon as friend him, and if you're not careful he'll leave you behind to save his own skin in a heartbeat.

So take those three, those lovable, cartoonish characters and wrap them into the world of Leone's one of a kind style. Just watch this movie for the way Leone uses the camera. Sure, we all know the closeups, but pay attention to what he gets out of them - especially the eyes. The amount of emotion he gets out of his main characters. The subtle facial twitches and quirks that give them a relatable life, where another director would stick for the warmth but distant medium shot. Look at the compositions of the shots, the blend of Ennio Morricone's magnanimous score, the prolific nature each camera movement takes. Each shot is setup to be a portrait of the film at large.

So developed that once you see a photo of it, the entire film begins to flash through your mind once again. You remember that music, the lines, the looks on each character's face as they match wits and guns against one another. The steadfast calm at which Blondie drew his gun. The shifty look of annoyance as Tuco tried to make heads or tails of a given situation. The way Angel Eyes laugh brought flames into those sharp, dagger eyes. It's all there, all memorable, and only gets better with time. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly may not be a movie you have to watch dozens of times to understand, but it is one that pays off no matter how many times you do.


Film Credits:
Directed By: Sergio Leone
Screenplay By: Sergio Leone, Furio Scarpelli, Agenore Incrocci, & Luciano Vincenzoni
Story By: Sergio Leone and Luciano Vincenzoni
English Version By: Mickey Knox

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

With a tagline that sent shockwaves through the cerebral cortex of any human being who dared look upon it, and a sequence of trailers sequentially more unsatisfying than the last, Rise of the Planet of the Apes seemed to me almost t-ed up for a screeching thud into land of the easily forgotten. Yet hidden beneath the surface of all that mangled marketing phooey is a film with a distinguishable depth, compassion, and curiosity that blends summer blockbuster and character study into a compact, and engrossing two hour journey.

The evolution of Caesar from curious but gentle hearted baby chimpanzee to the intellectual leader of a new race of super Apes brings much to the table for the viewer wanting such an experience. It would have been easy for the directors to throw a simple spin 'look dumb apes, now smart apes - action ahoy' rush job in order to maintain a high intensity thrill ride of a picture, but Director Rupert Wyatt and writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver knew exactly what needed to be done with this - create a world and put the viewer in it. I say it all the time, but it's perhaps the most undervalued trait a movie can give its viewer. If the team behind the picture can build that world, convince the viewer of the sincerity of the people inside it, and then carry on from there, it becomes a film viewers remember.

Though to build this world, Wyatt and company rely heavily on ol' fashion Hollywood archetypes, and seem comfortable not stretching out beyond such. Caesar is the real scene stealer for the film, and Serkis knows how to pull that off better than perhaps any other working actor. Franco's dry demeanor is put on turbo dry for this tale. Pinto is easy on the eyes but her character is given next to nothing to do, the same could be said for Brian Cox (especially the easy on the eyes part - just saying). Lithgow is always a delight, but he's unfortunately trapped in an overwritten role. The only two stars who represent the human side of the film with any memorable prowess are Tom Felton and David Oyelowo.

Felton, whose character embodies a rather generic 'bully' caretaker, shows a lot of gumption in what has to be said is basically a Draco-esque character to Caesar. Though he carries it off, and even goes head to head with Serkis in one of the film's most memorable scenes. Oyelowo is another underused character, given the good ol' fashion "I'm just in for the dough (money, not bread)!" boss, but seems to grow in terms of interest as the film progresses - culminating in a very well acted, and likely to be overlooked, final scene.

What I found most surprising about Rise of the Planet of the Apes is just how much story and development it manages to cram in an hour and forty-five minutes. The amount of non-verbal character building and molding it creates, it simply admirable - especially when you factor in the heavy summer-based requirement of action and violence to keep the audiences in check.

So, what kind of action does the film bring to the table? Well, more or less, it blends it into the plot. When I must say is such a refreshing feeling. The action works as a compliment to the story, not the navigating factor of it. Even the final battle, which we all know the film is building towards, doesn't feel forced or a simple baseline requirement. The film builds to its conclusion, not the other way around. Though with that comes a certain lack of sharp cynicism that reverberated throughout the prior installments, which I can honestly say was rather refreshing.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Rupert Wyatt
Written By: Rick Jaffa & Amanda Silver
Novel "La Planete Des Singes" By: Pierre Boulle

13 Assassins (2010)

Overall Score: 6.00/10

There is a new rule in Hollywood - "If you blow it up, they will come." No need to build anything really, that just takes time and effort. No, just find it, blow it up, and people will champion you to the bitter end. Which of course only embattle your opposition, and leaves those lovable folks (like myself) hanging in the realm of in-between.

The best way I can think of to describe the impact left upon me by 13 Assassins is this: I love it far more for what it came close to achieving than what it actually achieved. Sure, everyone by now knows how amazing of a visual spectacle the grand 45minute final action sequence is. And oh boy is it ever a spectacle. Full of just about every samurai fighting style, every sword decapitation, and way of dying one would dare think of (hell you even how kamikaze fire cows), few deny the sheer awesomeness of that sequence. But in the end, that's it really. That's the sell. A movie which clocks in at just over two hours, hinges everything on the effectiveness of that battle.

But does it really work? How much of the intensity one leaves the theater with relates to the film's overall quality? Unfortunately for me, that answer is 'only a little.'

13 Assassins opens with a 'hard sell.' No sugar coating, no fluffing, no tip toeing around - right away "that guy there is the bad guy, he's the worst guy, he's everything that is evil." Now let's move on - after all we have 13 Assassins to recruit. And so our main character, Shinzaemon (Koji Yakusho), does just that. Using contacts, pupils, and a few stowaways who happen upon them, we gain our 13 assassins. So... now what? Well, we plan, right? Sort of. The plan is quite brief, "you half nobody remembers because you've only been in this two minutes will now leave to do something important, while the rest of us will stay here and gain more screen time."

Sure, there's a couple minor action scenes along the way just to give a quick fix to the adrenaline junkies of the audience, but they're rather tame and without need. Nobody of any great importance suffers, nor does anything of great interest happen. If anything, they just serve to add plot points that will never be dealt with later on and can be quickly left by the wayside.

The rest of the film is all about the action. A scene I'll be kind and leave blank for those who want to see it and enjoy without expecting too many things. Suffice to say, it saves the film.

13 Assassins' opening hour is a drag. It's a drag on the plot, a drag on the pacing, and a drag on the viewer. Not much of any great importance occurs, while we go through the motions of a select few characters being given a base trait for us to recognize them by. The one soldier trapped by his dream of power and dedication to his master. The quiet samurai seeking one great conquest before his end. The drunken womanizer seeking redemption. Of course we have our silent super soldier who wields dual swords and just walks around looking cool. All capped off with the lovable loser, Kiga (Yusuke Iseya) who is revealed in the final moment of the film to be the most interesting character of the lot, but in order for you to know that you'd have to watch the film in reverse...

All of whom do a fine job of bringing up the inevitable comparisons to Seven Samurai. Which I think is a bit unfair. Seven Samurai built the foundation for the men on a mission genre. Movies like 13 Assassins have 60 years worth of building upon it to fall back on. Which begs the question - why didn't it? Sure 13 Assassins carries the markers of Seven Samurai, but it fails to capture the quintessential essence of the original tale - the characters. Overtly cheerful, with dark pasts to fall back upon, and a solid amount of screen time each, we are given a cause to care for them. A cause to wish them well, to want for them to succeed in their mission. 13 Assassins on the other hand calls for us to want the villain to die. A fine line I grant you, but in the over the top final battle sequence, with dramatic deaths a plenty, it takes all the emotional investment out of it. The viewer is left at arms length from the people he's supposed to be championing; their deaths are merely a countdown of numbers no longer available to defeat the evil Lord Naritsugu (Goro Inagaki).

So with that element left, the viewer is stuck. They can admire the choreography, engulf themselves in the action, but anything they feel beyond that is applied more so than delivered - in my humble opinion.

Of course, with Miike at the helm you will always have an eccentric style, dark comedic feel, and plenty of violence to fall back on. Which is why the film gets a 6 instead of a 5 of lower. I know I've spent a lot of time expressing my frustration with the film, but a good deal of that is disappointment. The farther I get from the end credits, the more I feel that a truly great film was within the reach of Miike and he missed it. Not by a mile or by an inch, but just enough to leave you wondering - what if?

Film Credits: 
Directed By: Takashi Miike
Screenplay By: Daisuke Tengan
Based on a Screenplay By: Kaneo Ikegami

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011)

Overall Score: 7.75/10

And so now, the journey ends. Matched in equal measure with whimpers and bangs, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 concludes in a manner equal to that of the film series itself - just fine. Never reaching beyond into that upper echelon of greatness, nor being bogged down by the sorrow filled world of rubbish. They are compliments to the novels that gave birth to them, and little more. Solid compliments, don't get me wrong. They are in every phrasing exactly what fans could want. Unfortunately because of this, they often find themselves wanting.

Deathly Hallows Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off (I know - shocker), as Harry, Hermione, and Ron plan their next move while Voldemort comes to the realization that his greatest secret has been unveiled. The game of chess is in full motion, and now is the time for everyone to move into position before the end is truly at hand.

Perhaps the most joyous aspect - for me anyways - to return to this installment of the series was a delectably thick slice of dark humor which had faded in Part 1 of the films. A sense of light hearted cheese mixed into tragedy which was always one of my favorite ingredients of the series. So, with a sense of urgency the film glides (or jerks) us from scene to scene, working its way to the epic finale of epicness (to steal a tagline from Scott Pilgrim).

A finale which I believe fully captures the scale of Rowling's novel, but also drags in with it some of the lesser aspects of the book. That is - the deaths. So many colorful and lovable characters fall in this battle and yet, they are merely sideshow pieces. Shuffled off to the side and and only presented to us in the aftermath, which I have always found as heartbreaking as the loss of the characters themselves. In favor of a few cheap gags, and an increased battle presence of Neville (something I fully support), we lose out on those solemn farewells and are thrust into the cries "wait, they died? When? How? COME ONNNNN!" Not to mention the problematic 'wait, who was that?' in the quick cuts to show the bodies before just as quickly moving away.

However, lamenting that one part would deprive us from the overall scale of the final battle - which is quite awe inspiring. A beautiful array of neon colors flashing throughout the dark scenery just illuminates the tension and intensity of the event. With many of our favorite characters returning in a collage of background characters running, screaming, and fighting for their life. We recognize their faces, remember the scenes of theirs brought a smile to our face, and continue on to the next.

Which brings me to something I struggled with. The entire time Deathly Hallows Part 2 was playing, I couldn't shake this uncanny feeling that I'd been through this before. I did try, oh did I ever try, but no matter how hard I did, it just wouldn't fade. The memory of Matrix Revolutions. A big battle leading up to an over the top final battle with an obscure switch up of an ending, none of which really makes all that much sense. Granted, DH P2 is beyond compare a better film (in part because it has the novel accompaniment to fill in the gaps), but I couldn't help but leave both thinking the same thing - "there should have been more." More exposition, more time to say farewell to the characters, more time dove into the final battle. Forgive my greediness, but one cannot help what they want.

Of course, getting what you want and liking what you get are two entirely different things. And I did quite love what I got. The tragic tale of Snape (Alan Rickman + super makeup for the win), the lovable presence of Minerva and all the Hogwart's staff, the coming of age of our main characters, and Ralph Fiennes absorbing all the scenery with each twitch and panic. There's such an assortment of wonder and beauty to behold in this adaptation. An exuberance of cheer and loss blended with an enduring dedication to hope.

Which I believe is a testament to the unsung hero of the Harry Potter films - Steve Kloves. Kloves burst onto the writing scene with his 2000 film Wonder Boys, and has been riding high on the Potter bandwagon since. Tasked with the ungodly difficulty of bringing Rowling's vision to life, Kloves has survived the series four directors (the film for which he didn't do a screenplay was Order of the Phoenix - Yates first entry as director). Though of course a great amount of respect must go to the directors themselves. Yates, not the most talented of the bunch, found a way to please newcomers and fans alike with his darkened style. He knew his place and knew what fans wanted. The dark tones and nature of Alfonso Curaon's Prisoner of Azkaban and the character dedicated sentiment that was Mike Newell's Goblet of Fire.

It is never easy saying goodbye to something that has been with you as long as this, but like all things one must travel onward and like the characters themselves - look to the future.

Film Credits:
Directed By: David Yates
Written By: Steve Kloves
Novel By: J.K. Rowling

X-Men: First Class (2011)

Overall Rating: 8.00/10

We all like to think we are the better men. That when you take away all our perceived notions of grandeur, and strip us down to our most bare boned nature, we exceed all others. That our species is dominant, and this world is ours to do with as we like. Now, you stand face to face with the knowledge that this is a fallacy. That your species is changing, and you will be left behind. Do you rise to embrace this change? Or do you sink in fear of it? Remember, your answer to this question, does not ensure your longevity, in either way. And also remember, those of this new evolution must make their decision with respect to you as well.

Such decisions lay at the heart of X-Men: First Class, as the dawn of a new mutation in the evolution of man comes into knowledge. Through juxtapositions and timeline identifiers, X-Men: First Class establishes the initial rift between Erik Lehnsherr, aka Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and Charles Xavier, aka Professor X (James McAvoy) that would forever shape the formation and social involvement of mutants throughout history.

Providing a global awareness demonstrably lacking in previous X-Men installments enables X-Men: First Class to deal with a wide spectrum of social issues at the backdrop of its core story. We are whisked away through a wide assortment of moral conflicts, both directly and indirectly tackled by our core characters.

It is a rewarding experience, especially for those fans of the series who have found recent installments lacking. Vaughn's direction is as on the mark as ever. Not too presumptuous, or trapped in self-aware moments, Vaughn offers a film that can be appreciated by both series newcomers and seasoned veterans. Fans of the series may be quick to point out that X-Men: First Class does not strictly align its timeline and plot-points with the fellow outings, but I believe it's actually for the best.

By declaring itself as both a part and separate from the entire X-Men series, X-Men: First Class is able to create its own narrative without worry about dates/times/character locations, which it does with solid precision. While at the same time, the film benefits from the predefined characters and attributes film goers are already familiar with. Though I am happy to report that use of it is limited, and that use is awesome.

But perhaps X-Men: First Class' greatest attribute lies in its use of character. So often these superhero films get bogged down by stereotyping, they forget to offer the viewer something to walk away with. A bit of the character to take home and reflect and embrace. X-Men: First Class most certainly does not. The film dives right into the mindset of each character, with the transformation of Magneto being the most gripping of all.

Michael Fassbender has been on the outskirts of public outcry for far too long, and this film is his first proper introduction to the world. Capable of maintaining and calling upon a wide range of emotions, he wonderfully navigates the complex internal struggle facing Erik Lehnsherr. Taking Erik from the blood ridden assassin to the philosophical leader, the viewer is given one of the more intriguing character studies of the last few years - well, definitely as far as blockbusters go.

James McAvoy continues his string of solid roles, proving he has what it takes to be both a leading man and supporting player in one go - and in all likelihood lining himself up to earn an Oscar in his 50s as a distressed middle aged father. Jennifer Lawrence and Rose Byrne provide the necessary confident female perspective, helping separate X-Men from its male driven counterparts in the Marvel universe. Kevin Bacon - despite having the wrong nose for his Magneto helmet - is an all around solid villain, earning laughs and boos in equal measure. While the rest of the cast handles their roles with the craft and consistency one would expect to find more often in big budget pictures. Still, who do I have to kill to get Jason Flemyng a viable acting part? Don't even get me started on Michael Ironside...

Of course, I would be remiss if I were to claim all that X-Men: First Class offers is without flaw. Now I'm willing to pass on the moldy cheese stench reeking from two of its core opening scenes. I'm also more than happy to let it slide that it's musical score is basically a greatest hits of Hans Zimmer scores for the last few years. But I must say, at the end of the day, I really wasn't all that impressed with how the film handled all of its transitions. And when you consider just how many there are, that's a rather big hurdle to overcome. The opening third is very jerky, not always well defined, and despite a collection of solid moments, felt like a cliff-notes writer lost control of his pen and went on a writing rampage before being tamed via electrocution rods and jammed back into his cage. Once the characters start coming together, the film begins to even out, but I couldn't help shake this underwhelming feeling of forced narrative usurping character moments. Some may call this nitpicking, but I contend that in a film of this scope, even the slightest nudge against the viewer's grip can take them off course throughout. Especially when you factor in the two-plus hour run time.

Then again, if you factor in the rushed production, studio's off the wall expectations, and a spree of casting that seemed as if they wouldn't stop even after the film was made, X-Men: First Class holds up incredibly well. The acting never feels like a let down - though Bacon's pug nose did meet its match in the Magneto helmet - Vaughn's directing is steadfast, and full of life (so much so I'm sure Ang Lee rolled his eyes more than once at the mid-film montage). Even writing team Miller and Stentz (who in my opinion were the weakest part of this year's Thor) found a solid middle ground to navigate with writer-director Vaughn and his longtime writing partner Jane Goldman.

All in all, X-Men: First Class is simply a top class superhero outing. If Thor was the jumper cables needed to get the engine going, X-Men: First Class is the sportscar that it started off and left the rest in the dust.

Film Credits:
Directed By - Matthew Vaughn
Written By - Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, and Matthew Vaughn
Story By - Sheldon Turner and Bryan Singer

Where Eagles Dare: The Epitome of Escapism

Escapism is addicting. Like a drug, you can find yourself itching for another hit. Begging for reality to fade off and the ecstasy of mindless entertainment enthrall you. It's a drug, and while it can be abused by even the best of us. In portion, it is a great reminder of the power of relaxation. And after a weekend first time viewing of Where Eagles Dare, I can think of few films that better embody that ideal.

With everything from a dual machine gun wielding Clint Eastwood to Richard Burton going to head to head with Nazis in an ice axe fight on top of a ski lift, hundreds of feet above the ground, this movie has it all. And whenever given the opportunity, it blows it up as well. There's grenade battles, tough pistol and machine gun carrying Frauleins, spies, a castle, and more bullets flying around than a Michael Bay action adventure. And you'd think with 2hrs and 30 minutes of run time, the movie would run out of things to do. Heck, I've only just discussed the last half hour!

Where Eagles Dare is by all accounts a two part film. The first half deals with spies, setup, and lays the groundwork for the no holds barred shootout that takes over for the final half. Even in context, that first half is a gripping game of misdirection. Where Eagles Dare, headlined by the infallible Richard Burton, hints and teases the viewer with promises of twists and turns to come. Knowing full well that once they come to pass, the only thing left for the viewer is the payoff. And payoff the film most certainly does.

Granted, Where Eagles Dare is not without its fair share of camp. You can tell Burton and Eastwood put in no effort for their faux-German accents that are supposed to help them infiltrate the castle. However, given the manner in which the film plays out, it seems almost fitting. As if that bit of absurdity was in and of itself a setup for the mass amount of action absurdity mania that was to come.

In their own way every character is a stereotype, and every character is hilariously so. Where Eagles Dare takes no shame in that, and by embracing it, it frees up the viewer to enjoy it just the same. Where many films, given the nature of spy tales, would seek to cram a message into the viewer, Where Eagles Dare settles for old school entertainment first value. A value, that was just what I needed at just the right time.

I was in dire need of an escapism fix, and there's no denying that this supplied my satisfaction in full.

127 Hours (2010)

OVERALL RATING: 9.00/10

A truly engrossing and visceral cinematic experience can be marred by any number of things. It can be marred by a couple, whom having already opted to sit in the front row, leaving fifteen minutes in, when their alcohol runs out. It can be marred by a lady off in the back of the theater incessantly offering unnecessary narration. Or it can be marred by the most untimely of intrusions - a fellow audience member's stomach rumbling, during the film's most critical and emotional sequence, at about a three on the Richter scale. Did all three of these things happen this past Saturday as I traveled out to see 127 Hours? Yes. Did they remove me entirely from the experience? Deprive me of the chance to truly appreciate Danny Boyle's directing or James Franco's acting? No. I am pleased to say, that when push came to shove, Boyle and Franco trumped them all.

Danny Boyle's 2010 cinematic look at one man's effort to overcome adversity is one of the most gripping visual experiences of the year. With countering fixed shots on Aron Rolston with the binding rock, and sweeping shots of the beautiful Colorado landscape, Boyle forces upon the viewer concurrent feelings of claustrophobia and isolation. Never assuming, always intruding, the feelings come to a boiling point as the viewer must wrestle the thin line between reality and hallucination. A world were fantasy is your only freedom, and in reality exists your only escape.

Navigating these frames of mind is James Franco as our protagonist, Aron Ralston. Forced with ever changing, often conflicting emotions, Franco is perfect as the audience's mediator into the mindset of Ralston. A man of high energy, quick thinking, and offbeat charm, suddenly forced into a situation where none of those values matter. Franco's darting eyes, constant upbeat tone, and even keel, offers the viewer an element of depth without needing to spell out every moment. As Ralston's mind begins to fade in and out of reality, Franco is there to maintain the illusion of being level-headed, keeping what could be seen as hokey firmly grounded in the realm of visual character study.

Sometimes even the simplest memories can save you

Danny Boyle brilliantly paces 127 Hours at 94 minutes. The film never drags, seemingly always on the move even though its main character is static. In part this is a testament to Boyle's brilliance in the use of music and sporadic high-pace cutting. Another contributing factor lay at the brilliant hands of A.R. Rahman for creating such fluid and beautiful music. Though the real hero of this is the know-how of Boyle and co-writer Simon Beaufoy for siphoning out any scene that delivers nothing for the viewer, leaving only a series of equally intense and insightful moments for the to become wrapped up in.

The best example of this lies in the infamous 'cutting' scene. While most other directors would make a huge deal about it with blaring music, a series of slow motion cuts, and an elongated build up - Boyle plays it straight. A few shots are there for reaction and surrounding, but it's the raw intensity of the moment Boyle seeks to capture. Audiences squirm and faint not because of the heightened violence of it, but because in that moment we feel what Ralston feels, what Franco delivers, and what Boyle captures. The entire film is the build up, when it comes time for the scene Boyle and company dive head first.

During the beginning, Boyle's multi-panel shots, and hard cuts, forced me out of scenes just as I was becoming enveloped in them. I felt as if the movie was making me to fight my way to be apart of it. As the film progresses Boyle becomes more aware of the intimacy in a shot as constricting as a head, the top of a boulder, and a wall. This, in turn, allows the audience to tap into the inner compassion they possess for witnessing the struggle of another human being. Much in the same way United 93 grabbed emotional cords despite pre-knowledge of the inevitable ending, 127 Hours consumes the audience into its world, blocking out our desire to concentrate on what we know, and instead live only in what we see - the defining marker of any great film.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Danny Boyle
Written By: Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
Based on the Autobiography By: Aron Ralston

So, what did you think of 127 Hours? Do you think it has viable Oscar chances? Or are you afraid of the inevitable arm scene to give it a go?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1

DIRECTED BY: DAVID YATES

WRITTEN BY: STEVE KLOVES

NOVEL BY: J.K. ROWLING

OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

With Dumbledore dead and Voldemort's horcruxes still out there, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) go on the run from an increasingly corrupt Ministry of Magic to complete Dumbledore's final task for them.

"These are dark times, There is no denying."

The screen goes black. After a brief pause the words 'Directed By David Yates" appear in rusted gold. An audible groan permeates throughout the audience. They were there, right on the hook. Ready to go anywhere with these characters, do anything with them, the will of the filmmakers was there's to obey. Then the line snapped, the audience splashed back into the world it has always known. It was an incredible deflating moment. The audience begged for it to just go on. Alas it would not... well, not for a few more months anyways.

Harry Potter an the Deathly Hallows (Part 1) is an engrossing adventure film that takes its audience on a roller-coaster of emotion. Traveling over lands vast and wide, through lore deep and mystical, there's never any sign of stopping. A few idle moments of pause, a few minor turns, all setting up for the big drop... that never comes.

David Yates' wonderful visual prowess has never been better. He captures the world Rowling described so eloquently her novel. Kloves intertwines drama, action, and narrative progression with the greatest of ease. At least that's what I'd like to write. The truth is Kloves' writing has never been jerkier. Yates direction has never felt more pressed for time.

Don't get me wrong Yates and Kloves do a bang up job accounting for all the things they left out of the previous films, but they also struggle with a desire to maintain an authenticity to the original work. There's so much setup information to be found in those first few hundred pages of Deathly Hallows each moment in the subsequent film rattles them off as casual observations. "Oh that necklace thing we got, yeah I'm sure it's cursed. How do I know? Easy, you seem a bit grumpy."

What ends up coming to screen is what I can only describe as a Cliff Notes version of Rowling's novel. Very much a this happened, then that happened, then this happened, and so on series of events. Yates wonderful tone and shakey-cam action sequences help supplant feelings of boredom and anxiety, while Kloves' dedication to siphoning out as much consistent action and drama as possible helps keep the film rolling along, even when the plot kicks it into neutral.

In what I can only describe as a wonderful retelling, in the vein of The Secret of Kells, Yates' take on the three Peverell brothers allows him to skirt the violent and dark undertones of the story and keep the film from delving too deep into the darkness. In many respects it is an encompassing moment in terms of visual style that represents the tone of the entire film.

Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson show just how much they've grown into viable actors, navigating the minefield of emotions their character's must traverse. Meanwhile I found myself quite taken with Yates look into the horcruxes, and the effect it has on them. Their changes are subtle, almost cynical, followed by a series of outbursts. The encounter between Ron and the first, and only (in this film), horcrux they tackle really dives into the mentality of Ron, in a very, how to put this delicately, 'graphic' representation.

In the supporting realm, Tom Felton really steps up his game as Draco Malfoy. Between Half Blood Prince and this I believe a strong argument could be made for his being one of the strongest of the young recurring actors. Special mention to David O'Hara who, in addition to being awesome, put a big smile on my face with his take on Albert Runcorn. Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans make the most of their brief appearances but there's little for the to do with major cuts to the characters. The rest of the returning cast carry with them the same strengths and weaknesses they've always had in their respective roles, so it would be redundant to go into that here.

What I enjoyed most about Yates direction is that he keeps things tight. A few establishing shots per custom, but we spend most of our time with all three of our main characters in camera, in isolated environments (one room, tent, elevator, etc.) Yates cools off on sweeping camera movements and exposition shots, making the film feel more intimate. It appears more dark because we spend more time up close with our character's emotional turmoil. Yates wraps us up in them and allows the performances to take control.

And it's really the performances that save Deathly Hallows from being too overwhelming an experience. The wonderful cast of characters created by Rowling really come to life on screen. The action is tense and exciting, but without these characters this installment would have felt more like a lecture than a journey. No matter how good that journey is.

Despite not really going anywhere, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows does a good job of simplifying the story thus far, creating a good starting set of questions from which the second part can pick up. It would have been nice to see more time with the supporting characters, but one can hope the second part will delve more into that realm (especially Dumbledore). However it must be noted, as I'm pretty sure every reviewer in the known world has mentioned, this is only half a story. The movie suffers exactly as you'd expect to it from that conundrum, but through great characters and visuals it manages to rise above them.


Two other random thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1:
1. Will Ginny ever get some solid screen time love? Kiss Harry, be on train, the end. Come on! Bonnie Wright may be a bit stale at times, but we need more to make the epilogue even worthwhile (especially since we know they've already filmed it).
2. We really need to get together and hold a convention to reinstate the Intermission! Please, if you're pushing 2.5 hours the bathroom is definitely going to call at some point.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD

DIRECTED BY: EDGAR WRIGHT

WRITTEN BY: MICHAEL BACALL & EDGAR WRIGHT

GRAPHIC NOVELS BY: BRYAN LEE O'MALLEY

OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

 After a chance encounter with his dream girl, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) must battle her league of evil exes, bent on preventing anyone from dating her.

  "You once were a ve-gone, but now you will begone."

I can say without any hesitation that in terms of pure entertainment value no film put a smile on my face quite as grand as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. That being said Scott Pilgrim is a movie riddled with little flaws that prevent it from reaching that tour de force amazement that would leave me, like it has so many of its now devoted fans, in a feeling of ecstasy. First, though, let's talk about what all the movie does right.

Scott Pilgrim has a way of viewing the world that will connect with the deepest of nostalgia to those who grew up in the time of arcades and NES/SNES. In essence Scott Pilgrim is the film tailor made for those of the early video game generation. Packed with references, high rock music, subtle jibes, and a coolness that can only be described in terms of its utter geekness, there's a great element of charm that plays to Scott Pilgrim's advantage.

Edgar Wright continues his streak of stylized, but smart, homage films that highlight him as one of the more creative visual directors of his age group. At the same time, Wright knows enough about the story to maintain the exasperated pace, and still blend in the series' many unique characters. As one could expect this comes with a double edge sword. The inclusion of the entire series into one film aids the action oriented picture. There's always a fight coming up and always new style pumping life into each and every one.

Unfortunately what gets lost in this array of style are the basic foundations of any classic: story and characters. Scott Pilgrim is a bit of a self centered ass and his 'evolution' as the series progresses feels rather forced in the context of the story. There's very little reflection, a whole lot of fighting, until of course the film's climax which tries to put all its lessons into one package. Meanwhile the many supporting characters, including star players like Ramona, get lost in one to two sentence character builders then shuffle off until they're needed again.


What saves Wright and Co. is the sheer brilliance of the cast. Each cast member, perfectly selected, melds into their character with great ease. There's never a moment when you doubt a particular actor is fully enveloped in their character, which allows the audience to forgive some of the lesser elements.

If there is one thing I would have request of Wright is making the film a good ten to fifteen minutes longer. The high octane pace may be perfectly suitable for its ADD rampant fanbase, but I felt as if there was much more to be told. The characters could have received more fleshing out, and the ending could feel a bit less 'and there you go' and a bit more 'aw, beautiful!' It's not the feeling that Scott Pilgrim did anything wrong, just that it could have done it a bit better.

Still, once the credits roll, one would be hard pressed to have found any emotion on my face other than a unquestioned grin. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World exudes charm, wit, and hilarity in a way few films in 2010 have managed to capture. If for no other reason than that, it earns my seal of approval.

There's no denying the vast allure of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Full of fun, excitement, and action, the movie keeps things light hearted and decently developed from start to finish. At times the movie depends too much on style to hide its weaker qualities, but when something works as well as this does you find yourself willing to forgive more than you normally would.

Red (2010)

RED

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT SCHWENTKE

WRITTEN BY: JON & ERICH HOEBER

GRAPHIC NOVEL BY: WARREN ELLIS & CULLY HAMMER

OVERALL SCORE: 6.50/10

When a hit squad is sent to the house of former CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), he teams up with former black-ops members from around the world, and his first real crush Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker), to find out whose behind it all.

"Old man my ass."

Red is an entertaining action, thriller, that suffers the most common mistake of its genre: a collection of good ideas and scenes, string together by an incredibly thin plot, and overly generic characters. Leaving Red to be just another one of the films where everything plays out exactly like one would expect it to. Never leaving the viewer with a sense of suspense, or surprise. It forces itself to rely on over the top action sequences, and characters to carry the weight.

Cox, Freeman, and Parker all turn in solid performances given their archetype characters. Malkovich brings in the fun ten times over. While Mirren is able to sexy it up a bit. Leaving Karl Urban and Bruce Willis to really battle for the emotional pull of the audience. Something the two do very well considering they generally play cliches, not heartfelt characters.

Perhaps leading to the more surprising aspect of Red being its honest care for the characters. We learn a bit about their past, how their years in the CIA have torn them emotionally. The realization that the only people they know in the world they fought tooth and nail against only 10 years prior. The bond that creates between them, and the consequences of it.

It should be stated now, rather that's what it aims to do. Often hinting at it, giving each character a good moment or two to reflect, Red speeds through these scenes with the same pace as an action scene. Opting to spend most of the time on the events leading to the next fight. Occasionally bothering to tap into the Willis-Parker romantic relationship (which I feel the film really misses on from Parker's point of view).

Still, Red is one of those films that's just fun to watch. It plucks at the emotional strings, but only enough to get you invested. From there on action, and silliness, take over. Some work better than others, some relationships feel more right than others. It may not win any awards for originality, or suspense, but it earns them for being straight entertainment from start to finish.

What Red lacks in creativity and surprises it makes up for in characters and zany action sequences. It'll seldom shock, but always aims to entertain. In that respect it fulfills all the criteria necessary for a good time out with friends.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME

DIRECTED BY: MIKE NEWELL
WRITTEN BY: BOAZ YAKIN, DOUG MIRO, & CARLO BERNARD
BASED ON THE VIDEO GAME BY: JORDAN MECHNER
OVERALL SCORE: 4.50/10

After the mysterious death of his adoptive father, the king of Persia, street orphan turned Prince, Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), finds himself being accused, and must flee his brothers quickly, in order to prove himself innocent.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The greatest flaw of Prince of Persia lies not with the directing, acting, or even its obviously better for a video game premise. Rather, it lies solely in the story. Prince of Persia's entire narrative is built on one simple belief: it has an ace in the hole ready to change everything the viewer things. That ace in the hole being, of course, time.

Only one problem: If you're over the age of 12, or have seen more than a handful of fantasy films, it's big ace in the hole ending is so blatantly obvious it pains the viewer to wait for it. And through all its action sequences, running, character development, and the like all I did was wait, and hope.

Hope that the writers had the good sense to adhere to their own story. That they wouldn't do what I so feared they would. Alas, they did go down that road... and bitter is the only lasting taste I can state.

I'm not a fan of the film's ending, to the point where its obviousness weakens any strength the leading elements may have possessed. Like a horrible poker player, Prince of Persia believe it's only teasing you by showing you one of its cards, not realizing that's basically shown you the entire hand. And when you seek to surprise in the end, showing too much is always a bad thing.

Though the journey must still count for something. Like The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects show, if the journey is well crafted, all can be enjoyed even if the ending is known. Here the journey is crafted with an incredible dedication to mediocrity. Flat characters (spray on tans galore), and dialogue that would make cheese seek to mold. Perhaps the one films real saving grace lies in the charisma of its leading actors.

They may not have been the right choices for the role, but they're the only thing that keeps the film afloat despite its insipid plot. Add to that a few creative fight sequences (some of which owe more than they'd care to admit to Indiana Jones) and you get a way to pass some time.

From the moment its key plot kicks in Prince of Persia drags its feet to an ending anyone can see coming, and to the detriment of the leading plot. Add to that a few too many spray on tans, and cheesy dialogue, and you'll find PoP is little more than a cheap summer flick layered with problems.

The Secret of Kells (2009)

THE SECRET OF KELLS

DIRECTED BY: TOMM MOORE & NORA TWOMEY
WRITTEN BY: FABRICE ZIOLKOWSKI
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

As his uncle (Brendan Gleeson) builds a giant wall to protect his city's inhabitants, Brendan (Evan McGuire) sneaks out into the forbidden forest in order to help in the completion of the famed Book of Kells. Though on his adventures he befriends Aisling (Christen Mooney), one of the last remaining fairies.

"I've lived through many ages. I've seen suffering in the darkness. Yet I have seen beauty thrive in the most fragile of places. I have seen the book. The book that turns darkness into light." - Aisling

Visually stunning, maturely crafted, and wonderfully mystical, The Secret of Kells is an animated film I hate... because it's so damned close to being absolutely perfect. That's the best way I can sum up my reaction to Kells.

A collection of great moments, rushed together too quickly, leaving the backbone too frail (especially as the film sprints at epic pace to its ending). While the voice acting suffers from being dreadfully flat, a constant reminder it's only an animated film. Those two things are painful to admit, because I felt so much while watching the film that it was right there. Right on the cuff of greatness, and it just couldn't connect.

I say that noting the immense beauty of the film. The characters, especially Aisling, are captivating. Full of layers, complexity, and intrigue. The movie manages to be light hearted, and dark at the same time. The battle between Brandon and Crom Craunch towards the finale is perhaps one of the top animated scenes I've ever witnessed.

Perhaps that's what I would note most strongly about The Secret of Kells. It's great strengths lie in its unspoken sequences. I don't blame the general cast, most of which have never acted before, but I just felt so deprived given the depth taken in creating such a rich visual experience. Though that's not to say I don't wholeheartedly recommend the film to everyone who enjoys animated adventures.

There's a certain charm, and beauty, that allows the film to escape its lesser qualities. Constantly waring with itself to display its strengths. In the end, despite it all, it does manage to do that. Though perhaps not to the results we all so desperately desire, and the animation truly deserve.

Flat voice acting, and failure to support its plot with more arches, The Secret of Kells is an amazing visual feat, that barely escapes the down weight of its weaker elements.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

CLASH OF THE TITANS

DIRECTED BY: LOUIS LETERRIER
WRITTEN BY: TRAVIS BEACHAM, PHIL HAY, & MATT MANDREDI
OVERALL SCORE: 3.75/10

After the death of his adopted parents, demi-god Perseus (Sam Worthington) is recruited by the city of Argos, who has begun a war with the Gods, to protect them, and their beloved princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) from Hades (Ralph Fiennes).

-----------------------------

I went in to Clash of the Titans expecting something in between abysmal and laughably horrid. And, in all fairness, I would say that's just about what I got. Embracing it's cheesiness just enough to escape being a disaster, Clash of the Titans amusing, if not horridly mishandled.

Perhaps the most kind thing I can think to say about it is: it's quick. Yet only in a way that one would wish upon their death, and not so much in a way one would wish for in entertainment. No, in fact, Clash of the Titans is a bad as they come. If you could display the pinnacle of 2010 blockbuster rubbish, this would likely stand (alongside Legion) as a figure for the ages.

Even talents such as Neeson, Fiennes, Mikkelsen, Huston, and Postlewaithe can't escape it's utter blandness. I do believe it tries to embrace the awesome cheese factor of the original. It just can't. There's no connection. Each word delivered as flat, and emotionless, as the last. Each new scene as bland, uninspired, and uncreative, as the one before it.

Oh, how desperately it wants to entertain. Clash of the Titan struggles with extreme annoyance through the buildup. Almost as if it hates the necessity for it at all. Yeah, yeah, he's born. Yeah, yeah, he's lonely. Yeah, answers. Sadness, COME ON! Let's GO ALREADY!

Unfortunately when a movie shows such a blatant lack of care for its own characters, how can one ever expect the audience too? And once the movie gets past these moments of explanation, it seems happy to never look back. Rushing from one action scene to the next (constantly annoyed at the need to stop in the middle for "character development"), Clash of the Titans is what happens when nobody is sure what they want to do.

It wants to keep the cheese there. But the cheese is stale, rotting, and everyone is certain to keep away from it. While the countering scenes of macho masculinity, and action, come off progressively less exciting, and uninteresting than the last. The grand finale, if one dares call it that, is the ultimate culmination of too much bad cheese, and too little creativity to make any lasting effect.

No, Clash of the Titans doesn't even have the good grace to be so awful, it's guiltily good. It is, for lack of any better phrasing, just awful. Now, if you excuse me, I feel a need to go and wash my eyes out with something more visually appealing.

No matter how hard it tries, Clash of the Titans is unsure if it wants to be macho, or be cheesy. Ultimately failing to be either, it flops with the loudest of displeasure. Neither comically bad, or cheapishly good, it falls swiftly into the realm of forgettable garbage. Quickly to be plowed over by any upcoming film with even the slightest amount of narrative awareness, or visual creativity.

Inception (2010)

INCEPTION

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

Hoping to get back to his family, professional information extractor Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) takes one final job for company boss Saito (Ken Watanabe). The job? To plant a single thought into the mind of future business mogul Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphey) - destroy everything his father worked for.

"Do you want to take a leap of faith?"

I'd be hard pressed to think of a modern director with as much knack for building, and delivering, pure tension than Christopher Nolan. The man has a down to a true art form. And how does he do it? Well as best I can tell: 1) lots of loud thumps 2) keep piling one problem on top of another and 3) let the audience fill in any gaps.

Putting that to the test, Nolan has presented us with Inception: The most visually bending live action film since The Matrix. Astounding in its creativity, confident in its execution, and powerful in its delivery. I, for one, am not in the least bit shocked it has grabbed at the awe of those most susceptible to its charms.

Like any Nolan film, he delivers the hook early, and drags the viewer throughout the run time right until you're in his grasp. It's a tactic that takes a lot of risk: if he misses early, he'll never get you back.

And I have to say, right from the start, he just about missed. With an opening that felt rushed (and dare I say sloppy), Nolan thrusts us right into the world of corporate espionage, multi-layered dreams, and creative imagery. All the while not explaining a lot, trying to tie it all around a very thinly laid out plot. Not to mention a horrid case of the Thank You for Smoking explanation write offs (thank god the government invented X or this would be hard!).

So, kicking and screaming, I went along with it. Accepted the 2 minute random appearance of Michael Caine for a little back drop. Didn't begrudge a painfully underused Pete Postlethwaite (...maybe). And allowed Nolan to deliver me his vision, and the quicker he did it, the better we all were for it.

Once Nolan is able to enter the mind. Once the main plot kicks in. The movie really begins. Able to open his directorial vision to the maximum, Nolan captivates, awes, and wows with each passing dream. Constantly building more. Constantly delivering more. Each new layer of dream not only opens a new plot hook, but also a new door to the inner workings of our main characters. We get to know them better. Finally develop the attachments the prior half lacked. And, most importantly, develop an understanding for the world Nolan wishes to create.

A world were time is always available, if you know the tricks. A world were the mind is key to entrance and escape. And, most importantly, a world where control of the mind can mean the difference between success, and insanity. Delivering this world with swift thumps, and high octane fuel, Nolan powers the film straight through each new development. Constantly keeping the audience on their heels, forcing their eyes to not sway from the screen. It's a gripping experience.

Then, dare I say, comes the ending. An ending I can safely say is meant to inspire repeat viewings and debate (as it already has) among the truly sold of audience members. I, unfortunately, wasn't one of them. I loved the action. I loved the delivery. I was absorbed in every fabric of the world. It's just, when it came down to it, I don't care enough to debate the ending. I liked the characters, but never enough to want to analyze their deepest dreams. Examine scenes in a manner of Holmes. Sure, it makes me wonder. But there in ends my desire.

I don't doubt that Inception may well be the visual film of the year. It may well be the directorial film of the year (if for no other reason than it's latter half). And, I'm quite sure, it'll make for one hell of a journey even on repeat viewings. Still, I don't love it. I admire, and appreciate, it. Not to mention, I loved the ride. I only just vaguely cared. And before you say my expectations were too high. I went in expecting it to be mediocre at best (as my recent tweets and posts can most account for). Inception is one hell of a ride. Definitely the best ride I've been on all year. But if you ask me what I most remember. It was the action. Not the story, or the characters. And for movies I love. Those two are my key points.

A visual feast, Nolan's Inception brings all the thrills we've waited all Summer to get in one jam packed punch. Masking its narrative short comings in massive ambiguity, Inception will (and has) inspired legions of fans to analyze, dissect, and attempt to understand any deeper meaning. Though I do wonder how much of that meaning is projected onto the film, and how much is really analyzed in the film (to any real extent). Tense to the nth degree, Inception will keep you on the edge of your seat, with a little kick just before the credits role.

Toy Story 3 (2010)

TOY STORY 3

DIRECTED BY: LEE UNKRICH
WRITTEN BY: MICHAEL ARNDT
ORIGINAL STORY BY: LEE UNKRICH, JOHN LASSETER, & ANDREW STANTON
OVERALL SCORE: 8.00/10

As Andy heads off to college, begins to bid farewell to his much beloved toys, Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz (Tim Allen) find themselves accidentally sent to the local Daycare. Believing they have found themselves a new home, they quickly find things are not what they seem.

"Sunnyside is a place of ruin and despair, ruled by an evil bear who smells of strawberries!"

When I first heard Pixar was heading back to Toy Story, now taking their only sequel and turning it into a trilogy, I feared they had run out of ideas. Were perhaps looking for a quick filler film to tie them over till the next year. I think it's safe to say, Toy Story 3 has well over proven that theory wrong.

While it can be simply marginalized to a tale about a boy learning to let go of his childhood toys, Toy Story 3 is more about the great changes in life. The farewells that must be said. The accepting that things will not always be the same. And the appreciating that no matter what changes, you never really lose the ones you care about.

Wrap that up in a hilarious hour and 40 minutes, and you've roughly got Toy Story 3. As fun a movie as I've seen this year, with all the heart to support what it seeks to portray. Intelligently created, blending genre cliches, with its own, finding a way to make each scene matter. If by no other method than appealing to the children in all of us... something Pixar does better than any other American animated company.

To cap off its appeal, Toy Story 3 brings to life a plethora of new characters for our entertainment. Ken (Michael Keaton) and Barbie (Jodi Benson) provide a colorful goofiness that just can't be shaken. And one can never be at loss when you add Ned Beatty to your cast list (not to mention the brief Totoro appearance). Support that with the return of Don Rickles, who always puts a smile on my face, and much of the old crew (of course minus Jim Varney replaced by longtime friend Blake Clark), and sweeping memories of my own childhood watching Toy Story comes back.

While it's story is a few years behind me, the message it carries still resonates in my mind. The leaving of childhood, entering adulthood, and what that really entails. Still, as the film quite well lays out, change is not bad. It's merely an opportunity to find something new, and just as meaningful as before.

Toy Story 3 doesn't seek to re-invent the series wheel. No, instead it relies on old tricks, wonderful characters, and great creativity to spin a whole new tale for its viewer. A tale filled with heart, longing, and acceptance, all of which reach deep into the psyche. Begging you to revisit your childhood one last time, no matter how "grown up" you are.