If you haven’t been to an animated film in a while, well, let’s just say things have changed. Today’s animation is a far cry from Porky Pig, Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. Characters that were once good for a thin plot and a good helping of slapstick have become more substantial and plots follow believable story lines. While Disney pioneered this movement toward more developed characters in animation with Snow White and Cinderella, current films such as Despicable Me are taking animation to a whole new level.

Our story opens amongst manicured lawns and picket fences where a run-down, gloomy house hides in the shadows of an otherwise bright and cheerful community. Unbeknownst to all residing around those dark and dank walls is a mediocre villain, Gru (Steve Carell) who is plotting to become the world’s greatest super villain of all time. His goal? To shrink and steal the moon!

The next logical question would be why? The answer: just to show everyone, especially his mommy, that he is the “baddest” super villain around!

Gru, along with the help of his army of little yellow minions, enlists the aid of three oblivious orphan girls to help him “one-up” his biggest competitor in the race to become the greatest super villain; a smug cipher (Jason Segel) who calls himself Vector. The competition between the two and the hilarity that ensues is very reminiscent of Mad Magazine’s Spy vs. Spy. The best part of the film is the relationship that is built between Gru and the girls. At first, knowing nothing about children, Gru places the girl’s food and water in dog bowls and sets newspapers out labeled “pee” and “poop”, but just as caring for children comes unnaturally to Gru, the girls naturally melt his villainous heart.

Along the lines of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and How to Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me is one of those non-Pixar animated films that actually rocks! While it doesn’t have the history of Toy Story 3, Despicable Me is a clever, humorous film that will be enjoyed by every member of the family. I saw the film in 3-D and I feel the extra two dollars is worth it (something that can’t be said for all of the 3-D out there today). The effects where well done and the rollercoaster scene is not to be missed.

Despicable Me has everything you want in a film: delightful characters, humor, action, heart, a great plot and for the kiddies and a 95 minute running time!

Share on Facebook

Nicole Holofcener’s independent film entitled Please Give tip-toed recently onto the screens, it should conclude to rounding applause. Kate and Alex (Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt) are a couple living in New York. They own a successful business specializing in vintage furniture. Kate becomes consumed with guilt as she buys furniture from the recently deceased, and her husband Alex struggles with middle-aged infidelity. Their fifteen-year-old daughter, Abby (Sarah Steele), is confronting genetically bad skin and all the behavior challenges most teenagers don’t face well.

The family lives in a small apartment, feeling the lack of space. They own the property beside them, but have an elderly tenant, Andra (Ann Morgan Guilbert) occupying the space. Andra is an ornery old lady who calls it as she sees it. Consequently they are waiting for her to die. Racked with guilt over this thought, Kate tries to befriend Andra and her two granddaughters, Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) and Mary (Amanda Peet). Rebecca is fiercely protective of her grandmother and is not up for making new friends. Mary could care less about anything not related to her, but they soon find themselves entangled in each other’s lives. They are all flawed, insecure individuals to whom we can all relate. These true-to-life characters connect the audience immediately to the daily struggles of each story, but the main focus is Kate: a bleeding heart liberal who constantly hands money out to every homeless person she comes across.

Holofcener creates a film with hints of laughter mixed with an in-depth look at what motivates us and what defines being a “good person.” Like most of her films (Friends With Money), Holofcener’s characters are real, struggling with their selfish wants and desires, but never ridiculing them; a tactic which allows the audience to truly connect and not feel bad for their own humanity. It is a beautiful combination of the hilarity and sorrow that comes with life.

What Holofcener does best is allow her phenomenal cast the room to delve deeply into their characters and do what they do best. Keener and Hall have standout performances and Guilbert’s portrayal of Andra is nothing less than perfect. I cannot think of a film recently that was so perfectly cast. If nothing else, do not miss the performance of this unparalleled cast.

Please Give is a snap shot of real life and real people, and because of this many might find the weight of this film too much to bear. But isn’t that what life’s about, bearing the unbearable?

Share on Facebook

Like others before it, Prince of Persia is another forgettable video game adapted for the big screen, but there is one real difference with this one: it has legs. I can see a bright future for this Persian comedic adventure. It will make money and has “sequel ability.” Like the game of its origin, this movie is an excellent one to go see if you’re looking for mindless entertainment that is only slightly better with the presence of Jake Gyllenhaal.

Walt Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer present this film, directed by Mike Newell, and trust me; Disney will not let you forget it. The first five minutes of the film is literally a “non-animated” version of Aladdin and the rest of the story closely resembles The Lion King. Right when you think this film is going to a darker, more interesting place, Disney swoops in and brings it right back to fluffy. This action-adventure is set in the mystical lands of Persia. A rogue prince named Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) reluctantly joins forces with a mysterious princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), and together they must fight dark forces to protect an ancient dagger that has the power to turn back time.

These types of light action adventure films are hard because they are what they are: sub-par films that will entertain, wow with amazing stunts and acrobatics, and titillate your darker side by including a mystical backdrop. The Prince of Persia stands out of the pack a bit due to the amazing performance by Gyllenhaal. He definitely out-shines the script and pulls the performance off by being a master of his craft and infusing his character with a genuine sense of purpose and a wry sense of humor.

Another surprising presence in the film was Ben Kingsley who plays the reprehensible Uncle Nizam. I always find it strange when you see an actor of that caliber in a film such as this. It was off-putting. Every time I saw him on screen, I wondered what “the Ben Kingsley” was doing here.

Last but not least would be the entertaining performance by Alfred Molina, most recently know for his amazing role in An Education. He plays a wily desert con man that has issues with “the man” and he is truly fun to watch. He brings a child-like feel to his role and is truly talented in everything he does.

Prince of Persia has an incredible but strange cast of characters who make the film enjoyable at times. As far as summertime films go, this one’s right down the middle; not too thought provoking, but adventurous and entertaining enough.

Share on Facebook

I am in love with everything Tim Burton. For me, anything the man touches turns to gold; which is why the next few paragraphs were some of the hardest to write. Tim Burton’s take on Lewis Carroll’s classic Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland, lacks a cohesive storyline and relies too heavily on 3-D effects and nothing more.

Recently, the measuring stick by which all modern 3-D films are held is Avatar. I am not a James Cameron fan, but his creative, out of the box approach to the use of 3-D technology was astounding. I really didn’t understand how Cameron could be so forward-thinking with his film while Burton simply stumbles around. Burton’s idea of 3-D could be compared to films like My Bloody Valentine: films that rely on nothing more than tossing objects right at you. It made me think that Burton jumped on the 3-D bandwagon for no other reason than to be on the bandwagon – not cool.

As you may not already know, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a sequel to the original story, wherein Alice falls back down the rabbit hole several years after her first adventure. The entire film begs the question, “Why did Burton create Alice?” She has no memory of her first trip and she not only annoys the residents of Wonderland with her amnesia, but I also found her seeming ignorance intolerable. That wasn’t the only thing that was distracting and strange. Like a stubborn child, Wonderland dug its heels in and did not change. It seemed as though everyone and everything was just standing around waiting for Alice’s all-important come back.

The film introduces us to a young, spirited and progressive Alice at the beginning as she runs away from a marriage proposal. The she falls down the rabbit hole, somehow losing all confidence and sense of self. It was difficult to watch the iconic character of Alice be so used with no real sense of purpose; much like this film.

Let’s move forward to the content, or should I say lack thereof. The entire film went from one choppy segment to the next with no real direction. Burton never allowed time for character development, which left the viewer with no real connection. Alice’s needed realizations of her past, present and future were forced and rushed, which drove home the feeling that Burton never really developed the movie in his own mind. The only character that Burton seemed to spend any real time on was the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and honestly, I don’t think Burton had anything to do with that; that was all Depp, and as we all know, Depp is brilliant!

Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland is nothing more than the freak show at the carnival; something to point and gawk at. It would have been wonderful if Burton would have decided to include a believable story to this patchwork of uninspired, but brightly colored characters, but unfortunately Burton failed to bring anything new to the table and it was frustrating.

Share on Facebook

Scott Cooper’s directorial debut, Crazy Heart, is a tired storyline that is only brought back to life through a spectacular performance by Jeff Bridges. Crazy Heart is based on the 1987 novel of the same name by Thomas Cobb and includes a phenomenal score produced and written by T-Bone Burnett.

Bridges plays Bad Blake, a 57 year-old alcoholic country music singer/songwriter who has allowed his addiction to run his life. Once was a star of country music, a mentor to many, and one of the greats, he now earns a modest living playing one night gigs and living on the road alone or in cheap motels. He spends more time drinking than singing, and even less time writing.

Lost and full of guilt and regret, Blake blindly and sarcastically stumbles through his daily existence. However, all of this soon changes when he meets Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a young divorced journalist with a four year-old son, Buddy (Jack Nation). This relationship is the motivation that Blake needs to get his life and career back on track, but we soon find out that old demons are never that easy to shake. As he struggles down the road to redemption, Blake learns that life will never be easy, but can be satisfying and worth it.

It is hard to pay proper homage to Jeff Bridges’ portrayal of Bad Blake. He brings his extensive knowledge, cunning, untailored charisma and humble brilliance to what I feel is his defining role. He is so attuned to ever feature of this character that you are lost within the two. Even though the storyline was played-out, Cooper lets you experience Blake’s slow revitalization right along with him.

The dry climate, dramatic red rock landscapes and empty flatlands of the US southwest were beautifully portrayed in the film. The stark environment only added to the desolate life Blake was living. The score at times felt more bluesy than country, which should be no surprise if you are aware of Burnett’s extensive and eclectic musical background. T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham have been nominated for an Academy Award in the category of Best Song for The Weary Kind and it is well deserved.

This film is more forgiving to its characters than real life, but Crazy Heart is a beautiful portrait of a man unknowingly searching for redemption. The performance by Jeff Bridges can not be missed.

Share on Facebook

Nine is truly a spectacle of the eyes and ears for everyone. It is packed with great talent, marvelous costumes and interesting choreography but lacks in making a true bond with the typical audience member. To fully appreciate this film you need to do your homework. As a young movie buff, I was advised to look carefully into the origins of this Broadway musical and I feel it was the only reason I was able to make a connection with the film.
This film comes from the book by Arthur Kopit and Mario Fratti and then created into a Broadway musical with lyrics and music by Maury Yeston. The story is based on Mario Fratti’s adaptation of Federico Fellini’s semi-autobiographical film 8 ½. Fellini came up with the title 8 ½ from counting his bodies of work which included six full length films, two short films and one film that he co-directed. Yeston put a spine on that when titling the musical Nine stating that by adding music to 8 ½, “it’s like half a number more”.
The plot goes something like this: Not ten days before filming is suppose to begin on director Guido Contini’s (Daniel Day-Lewis) next big hit, we find that there is a huge problem; Contini hasn’t event written the script! Contending with a mid-life crisis and severe writer’s block, Contini finds himself more obsessed with his personal life than his professional and it is getting him into trouble. Suffocating himself and his creative genius with multiple relationships including haunting visions of his mother (Sophia Loren), an obsessive mistress (Penelope Cruz), his muse (Nicole Kidman) and his wife (Marion Cotillard) Contini finds himself struggling with balancing the demons that plague true artists and what he truly wants from reality. In the middle of all of this is a film career on the brink of destruction.
Comparing the research I did on the play and the film, director Rob Marshall seems to have taken a lighter approach to the musical itself and I think that is where the disconnect occurred. The play seemed to be much darker and really delved into Contini’s anguish and struggles. The film never allowed you to truly connect with his inner demons the way I imagine the Broadway version did. Yes, it was present in the film and yes, it was well acted by Lewis, but it left you needing and wanting more.
Visually, the film was stunning, jumping between black and white to color to gritty textures to whimsical dream sequences. Colleen Atwood designed the costumes for the film and all where a feast for the eyes. Truly bringing Marshall’s vision to life and only amplifying the beauty of the predominately female-based cast. I feel the music could have been more captivating than it was for contemporary movie audiences. If you would compare the score to Evita, Les Miserable or even Moulin Rouge you would find that it could not stand on its own.
All in all, Nine was a joy to watch but not very fulfilling for me. With such an amazing cast, Daniel Day Lewis and Marion Cotillard stealing the show, it was sad to see it not reach its true potential.

Share on Facebook

Guy Ritchie’s resurrection of the beloved adventures of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes is truly a Holmes for the new decade. The film is a brilliant modern action adventure that breathes new life into one of the great detectives of all time. With an incredibly dark and mystical storyline by Lionel Wigram, the audience is reminded of one of our long lost friends: the great detective Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes is an exciting movie that promises to be a successful franchise.

Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) plays an incredibly deductive genius that wows us with his extensive knowledge and observation skills. Ritchie takes Doyle’s Holmes and places him under a microscope, amplifying the character and forcing Holmes’ other eccentricities to the forefront. Alluded to within Doyle’s writing, Holmes’ “only vice” is his drug use, manic depressive states, and unorganized surroundings. Holmes is recognizable in the film but exaggerated by Ritchie’s warped view. Ritchie creates Holmes as an eccentric, disheveled savant that is lost within his own madness who only breathes reality while honing in on the solution to a mystery.

Downey portrays a highly disturbed, yet mesmerizing, Holmes that coyly plays with our curiosity. Downey walks the line between charismatic and hauntingly exceptional. His deep friendship with his counterpart Watson (Jude Law) only cements Holmes more deeply into the audience’s minds and hearts. Watson is the ying to Holmes’ yang: a confident, well-mannered gentleman trying to create a normal existence while fighting his inner demons instead of wholeheartedly embracing them. The duo is cinematic excitement in the making. Their chemistry is undeniable and only heightens the fun.
Incorporating Holmes extensive martial arts knowledge and weaponry, John Watkiss brings us incredible images of a gritty Holmes that reminds one of a 19th century super hero. Watkiss creates a stunningly visual film that animates the London of the last century to a degree that the original Sherlock Holmes movies could not portray. With incredible camera techniques and unique shots, Watkiss brings mundane fight scenes to life. Integrating coarse and sweeping cityscapes, one is immediately whisked away into Holmes’s world of late 1800s England.
The film centers on the duo’s race to stop the dark Lord Blackwood. As the darkness takes over the film, Holmes’ and Watson’s constant comical banter allows a touch of brightness to shine through, but like any Holmes adventure you never know what is around the next corner. The film captures the same unrestricted fun of films like Indiana Jones, Romancing the Stone or Ocean’s Eleven without losing the mystery. It has something for everyone. And like any good franchise, the film ended leaving you wanting more.

Share on Facebook

With the holidays just around the corner, we’re all trying to save our pennies, so in the spirit of things I decided to cruise downtown to the $1.00 kiosk and see what I could find. There was a pretty good selection of films there and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Up in stock! This animated film was on my must see list, but I never got around to seeing it.
Hands down, Up is one of these best animated films of the year and is packed with family fun for everyone.
The film is a Disney-Pixar comedy-adventure about an elderly balloon salesman, Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner), who finally fulfills his and his wife’s lifelong dream—participating in a great adventure where he ties thousands of balloons to his house and flies away into the “wild blue” floating over the untamed jungles of South America. What he doesn’t know is that he has floated away with a lot more than just his house. He has a stow-away aboard in the form of a rambunctious eight-year-old named Russell (Jordan Nagai). The unlikely pair go on a hilarious journey together.
With films like Up it is no surprise Oscar has expanded their animated film roster this year. Up has everything including an exceptional plot, great voice actors and is visually stunning; pure perfection! I hope this film vies for top honors at the awards.
When it comes down to it, the storytelling is what captured my attention and would be most appreciated by any adult who has read stories to their children. The plot is plausible and the first 30 minutes of the film is some of the finest storytelling I have had the pleasure of hearing or seeing. The beginning montage transports you into the lives of Carl and his wife Ellie and is beautiful, funny and heart-breaking. Filled with surprise and intrigue, it tells a timeless tale of adventure and aging that touches on every emotion. One moment I was crying and the next laughing hysterically.
It is an incredible story that will make good family time viewing at home over the holidays. So if you are looking for the next WALL-E, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. or Toy Story, Up is the film for you and your family!

Share on Facebook

"Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" is a huge disappointment to fans of the book series and finishes well short of a promising potential.

By Megan Carroll

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant sucked the life right out of me. It was one of the worst film’s I’ve seen this year, hands down. All I wanted to do was get up and actually enjoy the rest of my Sunday, but I took one for the team.

The series of books written by Darren Shan was wonderfully written, imaginative and a total joy to read. I am not sure what happened between the book and the screenplay, but the ball was dropped. I find it extremely frustrating and confusing when the filmmakers/screenwriters don’t tap into the author’s voice and vision. From DarrenShan.com, under the frequently asked questions section, Shan states, “I have nothing to do with the movie side of things”. This speaks volumes as to why the film was made so poorly. When directors, screenwriters and authors work closely together, you see the benefits of that relationship in the film, such as with director Spike Jonze’s and author Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are.

This film was overstuffed, scatter-brained and had zero character development. The story felt rushed and lacked feeling. The viewer had nothing to connect with on screen and that all comes down to Weitz not taking the time to create a film with which the audience could relate. And what makes it even more frustrating is that he had an excellent cast at his finger tips and a series of books which could have turned this film into the next Twilight saga. John C. Reilly was the saving grace for me. He was brilliant, and really tried to make the prosaic script work.

Visually, the film was dated; another piece of evidence that Weitz lacks vision and imagination. It felt like a made-for-TV movie on the ABC Family Channel. The person in charge of costumes and makeup could not have been over the age of 5; you could see exactly where the costumes ended and the actors began. It was so bad it was almost laughable.

Weitz and the other half of the screen writing team, Brian Helgeland, never allowed this film to actually rise from the grave. They stunted the magic that was Cirque du Freak, the frightening story of a boy who chooses a life of adventure and unknowingly fulfills his destiny. Ignore this film and get the books, because Weitz failed miserably in his attempt. The only thing Weitz created was a colossal bore of a teen vampire film which felt like a CW sitcom.

Share on Facebook

Contemporary director Spike Jonze collaborates with renowned author Maurice Sendak to bring to life one of the most beloved books of all time to the big screen in Where the Wilds Things Are. A classic story about childhood and the places children go to try and figure out how the world works.
The film tells the story of Max, a sensitive and boisterous boy who feels left out and misunderstood by his family. He is highly creative and intelligent, which is why it is no surprise that Max finds himself on an island where the “wilds things are”. We are quickly introduced to the mysterious and strange monsters that inhabit this island and find that they are not really monsters but more like you and I – sensitive and boisterous. The monsters are seeking a leader and Max is frantically seeking a world that he fits into and understands, so being their King is a remedy with which both are satisfied. When Max dons the crown, he promises to create a place where everyone will be happy, but he soon finds out that promising and delivering on those promises are two different things.
I felt I should have revisited the book before I went to see this film because I found myself overwhelmed with the depth of Max’s sorrow and loneliness. I know that Jonze took some liberties with the plot with Sendak’s endorsement, but it is funny how, as children, we see things as being adventurous, exciting and kind of scary (which is how I remember the book) versus how we view things as adults.
The film brought a whole new light to what the book was actually trying to tell me as a child. The passage from First Corinthians never rang more true in my mind as I watched this film: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.” I found myself constantly fighting my inner child to see this film through my imagination instead of my logical adult mind. If you don’t allow your imagination to take over you will be unable to fully enjoy this film and miss its breathtaking beauty, groundbreaking filmmaking and stunning storytelling.
Jonze and Sendak bring to life Max’s story with such intensity and realism that I found myself inundated at the films depth of character and emotion. Visually, the film is muted, mostly shades of brown and gray, but throughout the entire film you’re asking, “how did they do that!?” Jonze’s blend of people in costumes, puppetry and CGI is genius, totally believable! Not one part of this film feels like a special effect. This mastery of film creates the whole picture for us; an incredible story in an incredible place.
Where the Wilds Things Are is an intelligently made, creative masterpiece that should be seen and enjoyed by all. The film reminds us of childhood; a time of freedom long forgotten, but maybe a time we should visit more often.

Share on Facebook