Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Review #2321: Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

Cast: 

Taylor Schilling (Dagny Taggart), Grant Bowler (Henry "Hank" Rearden), Matthew Marsden (James Taggart), Graham Beckel (Ellis Wyatt), Edi Gathegi (Edwin "Eddie" Willers), Jsu Garcia (Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia), Michael Lerner (Wesley Mouch), Jack Milo (Richard McNamara), Ethan Cohn (Owen Kellogg), Rebecca Wisocky (Lillian Rearden), Christina Pickles (Mother Rearden), Neill Barry (Philip Rearden), Patrick Fischler (Paul Larkin), Sylva Kelegian (Ivy Starnes), Jon Polito (Orren Boyle), and Michael O'Keefe (Hugh Akston) Directed by Paul Johansson.

Review: 

You may or may not know the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Born and educated in the Russian Empire, she moved to the States in 1926 and wrote a handful of novels and plays (I vaguely remember reading Anthem as a high school freshman over ten years ago but can remember more about Orwell's Animal Farm by a landslide). Describing the book as her magnum opus and one about "the role of man's mind in existence", the book grew a certain following among libertarians among a wide variety of reviews (one review said that within the novel, "a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chamber—go!'"). Every year, over 400,000 copies of the words of Rand (including the novel) is donated to high schools by an institute that bears her name. For decades, there had been rumblings of trying to make the novel into either a film or a miniseries, with Rand even trying to make a screenplay before she died in 1982. The rights ot the film had been given to her heir in Leonard Peikoff, who had sold an option on producing the film to investor John Aglialoro in 1992 (a chairman of Cybex International and a member of the Board of Trustees of The Atlas Society). Through failed attempts at a miniseries on TNT and a project overseen by Howard and Karen Baldwin and Lions Gate Entertaiment that went nowhere in the 2000s, Aglialoro eventually took it upon himself to write screenplay with Brian Patrick O'Toole (as opposed to using the script by Randall Wallace that would've somehow made the movie into a two-hour work) that eventually got into production just two days before the film option was to expire. Stephen Polk was replaced by Paul Johansson as director just before filming began; Johansson is mostly known as an actor to go alongside directing fourteen episodes of One Tree Hill and go figure that this is his only directing credit. Shot over the course of less than six weeks for apparently over $10 million (speculation was that it actually was $20 million, but at any rate, "red camera technology" was used to get digital images for the film), the movie had to go through covert marketing outside of the usual norm that saw promotion from whatever "FreedomWorks" is. The movie never was released to more than 500 theaters at any point during its release cycle that started in April of 2011. Aglialoro went so far as to call critics who panned the film as "lemmings" that were scared of Ayn Rand and called it motivation to get the sequels made, which were done with lessening budgets and different directors and cast for each successor in 2012 and 2013. 

Honestly, I don't really try to put much of a political slant in these reviews (editorializing is more fun in calling Evel Knievel a bum than trying to spend sentences on Michael Moore, for example), I just go for what might be interesting (with Turkey Week being the "fun" alternative). It was either going to be this film or God's Not Dead (2014) and I shudder to wonder if I picked the sillier movie by accident. You just have to love a movie where an overhead shot cuts to a closeup where one says, "In order to save my family's business [actor pause] I'm going to have to abandon it" which is then immediately followed by a guy playing with a train set. I just have to ask myself: what in the actual hell is this movie? Where the hell did the money go to make a movie that has the trappings of a Hallmark movie? Do libertarians treat this movie like folks treat religious movies? The only thing "epic" about this movie is that it has the absolute weirdest sensibility about storytelling and dialogue that feels like it was written by aliens. This weirdo rendition of 2016 somehow makes the real one look sane by comparison, complete with obsession for trains. The jargon that gets spoken on screen makes me appreciate the technobabble heard on Star Trek episodes because at least those episodes didn't feel like pants about to rip in two from stress or involve a "State Science Institute". Folks disappear when people ask about "John Galt" while their photo turns to black-and-white that lists their name as if it was an NCIS episode, with the last guy being "on strike". People either share exhubrance for being in boardroom meetings or trains in a manner that suggests the movie is actually the product of someone actually having sex with a boardroom or train. I suppose there might have been something about "makers vs. takers" and capitalism to talk about here, but the whole experience is hollow and not at all compelling enough to not move past being a self-righteous screed about governments and money that has the persuasive power of a homeless man talking to you about certain men being the Devil for 97 minutes. The only amusement I get is the random bits with name actors trying to make sense of playing such weird caricatures, whether that involves Armin Shimerman (best known as Quark on possibly the best Star Trek show in Deep Space Nine) talking about "social danger" metals or Polito and Lerner playing spooky elites. Schilling and Bowler don't prove ideal to serving these leads because the characters have very little depth to actually deliver substance (you would almost rather see a hammy actor) that might actually make you wonder if they swapped brains with Neil Breen. Beckel just gives off crazy vibes. By the time one gets to burning oil wells for the climax (okay, funny word to use for the film but still), one is as satisfied in getting to the "End of Part I" title card as one would be in finding that one's housekeys were on the roof. As a whole, this is a baffling movie to watch, having little to offer people in actual production value that looks and feels cheap in the ways that matter most for a hollow experience. It somehow seems out of date and out of touch in terms of delivering a point beyond meandering mealy-mouth mush.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Candidates that fell by the wayside for our fifth and most successful Turkey Week in terms of terrible crap seen: 

Mitchell (1975), If Ever I See You Again (1978), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Simon Sez, 

 Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, Killing Me Softly, Project Moonbase, Shanghai Surprise / Body of Evidence, The Slime People, Don't Go in the Woods, H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come, Folks!,

The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Billy Jack Goes to Washington, Return to Blue Lagoon, 

The Starfighters, The Identical / God's Not Dead, Date Movie, and 2024's Reagan / The Crow. 

We shall see where the road takes Turkey Week in 2025.

The Cabin in the Woods.

Review #2302: The Cabin in the Woods.

Cast: 

Kristen Connolly (Dana Polk), Chris Hemsworth (Curt Vaughan), Anna Hutchison (Jules Louden), Fran Kranz (Marty Mikalski), Jesse Williams (Holden McCrea), Richard Jenkins (Gary Sitterson), Bradley Whitford (Steve Hadley), Brian White (Daniel Truman), Amy Acker (Wendy Lin), Sigourney Weaver (The Director), and Tim de Zarn (Mordecai) Directed by Drew Goddard.

Review:

" I’m going to leave that to others to decide. If subversion comes along, so be it. I just love that we’re throwing the ultimate horror party. And really, we’re telling stories about why we tell stories, with what the characters go through. That’s the nature of creation."

Well, it was bound to happen someday. Drew Goddard started off as a production assistant before eventually becoming a staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002-03), which you might remember was created by Joss Whedon. Goddard wrote his first film screenplay with Cloverfield (2008). The movie came out from a desire of Goddard to work with Whedon on something, which went from brainstorming an outline to eventually getting down to writing a first draft in the span of three days. According to Whedon, he envisioned the film as one that would be a "serious critique of what we love and don't about horror movies", one that would have what they liked in being scared along with making light of what they didn't care for recently while Goddard once called it as "more a critique of society" in posing the question about why one feels the need to marginalize youth on screen. The movie was originally slated for release by MGM...in 2009. Financial difficulties with the studio eventually led to it being released by Lionsgate years later (it was first screened in 2011 before release in March of 2012). Based on a promo campaign that pushed for as little spoiling as possible, the film was a fair hit with audiences. Goddard has continued to write in television and film (while directing once more with Bad Times at the El Royale [2018]).

Sure, maybe there is a worthwhile metaphor worth holding up for this film. Sure, maybe this is your ideal horror movie for its era that holds up well in an era of references and other things. But man, I really, really did not care that much for this movie as much as other people seem to vaunt it as a cult classic, particularly with its ending. In trying to make a "loving hate letter" to the horror genre, all I found that doesn't even have a payoff on the levels of Scream (1996). In trying to present that the monster is basically interchangeable, all I got out of that was a movie that is exhausting more than clever. The acting tries to have people play both "character" and the "archetype" to decidedly mixed results, because if you're going to play homage and parody with the slasher, you better have something charming brewing beyond Kranz being the standout. Get it? Our five guys to follow up (spoiler: not actually five) are not actually the cliches you think they are but are still pretty one-note anyway? Get it? Call me crazy, but you know what was more fun? Watching the strange charm of seeing Jenkins and Whitford together basically watching the build-up for people dying because, and I say this sincerely, they actually are funny. They may reflect the viewer when it comes to viewing our leads and waiting for things to play out (or in an amusing moment, watching them scoff at the failure of a certain horror scenario play out) but honestly, I would probably rather watch them play out for the whole film. Of course, perhaps I am not the kind of person to really understand "meta" or whatever but consider that some have seen plenty of horror films that actually let you think about its cliches and don't come off as exhausting. The Deadly Spawn (1983) wasn't much more than its effects sequences, but I was more interested in where it was going to end up in its house-bound locale than here with its attempts at playing on the joke (it also didn't have an ending that made me roll my eyes). Hell, Shaun of the Dead (2004) just shut up and rode its romcomzombie foundation for a consistent ride that commented on the old stuff but actually was worth its stuff in the elements. But, well, I can at least say it isn't on the level of The Blair Witch Project (1999) in being overrated? You want horror movies with "meaning"? Then give me something worth its salt to actually hold up beyond essentially chuckling at itself. Time will surely give credit to this film for its playing with the tropes of horror, but I'm not going to lose any sleep in calling it average. It has a few interesting moments in curiosity in actual violence, specifically a moment of release to build-up the actual reveal, and it sometimes is funny when it comes to looking at them beyond cliches. But as a whole, it manages to overwhelm and underwhelm itself in misplaced ideas about horror and youth for overall execution that makes it just average in the long run. Go into the film with as little expectations or knowledge as possible and see for yourself, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: two better horror movies with elements of humor, and the first is Braindead.

Down the Road Again.

Review #1694: Down the Road Again.

Cast: 

Doug McGrath (Pete McGraw), Kathleen Robertson (Betty-Jo Mayle), Anthony Lemke (Matt Burns), Jayne Eastwood (Betty Mayle), Cayle Chernin (Selina), Tedde Moore (Annie Burns), Kristin Adams (Secretary), John Cleland (Sammy), and Elva Mai Hoover (Housekeeper) Written and Directed by Donald Shebib (#408 - Goin' Down the Road)

Review: 

"I think “Down the Road Again” has a better script, more emotional. It will never have the effect the original one had, that was kind of a unique film in its own way, but it was also filled with flaws, a lot of montages, musical sequences–there were far too many."

Do you remember Goin' Down the Road? 51 years later, it still stands one of Canada's most notable feature films, one that followed two Canadians from the Maritimes (located on the Atlantic coast) that migrate from Cape Breton Island to Toronto for the perceived better opportunities in jobs and the bright lights only to find hard truths. It was the debut feature film of Toronto native Donald Shebib, who was once quoted as saying the basic premise was to make a film about folks most people wouldn't care for, stating that "The young twenty-five-year-old hip kids that went to see the film wouldn’t spend the time of day speaking to those and neither would I, but they like them in the film.” Shebib had spent over a decade in film that started with his study at the the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television in 1961 that had followed his study of sociology and history at the University of Toronto. His study there got him close to a classmate that soon became involved in film production with Francis Ford Coppola, and Shebib worked as a cinematographer and assistant editor on Dementia 13 (1962); Shebib started to do his own short films around this time. After graduating in 1965, he returned home to do work with the National Film Board of Canada and CBC Television in documentary filmmaking (which received notice, although little of his work is readily available); it was his experience seeing his cousin try to make a living in Toronto from Cape Breton that had shaped the film's creation, one made on a crew of four people on $25,000 that starred Doug McGrath, Paul Bradley, Jayne Eastwood, and Cayle Chernina that Shebib co-wrote with William Fruet. Shebib has directed ten feature films (with another in post-production), but Goin' Down the Road is generally the movie he is most remembered for (much to his surprise, since he did not expect it to get any commercial distribution), and it is considered one of the most seminal films for Canadian cinema.

Perhaps it makes sense that clips from the film are used throughout this one (one just a bit shorter than the original at 84 minutes). Shebib was inspired to make a follow-up after years of cajoling (mostly from Chernin, who passed away from ovarian cancer three months after filming), and he wanted to make a film that touched people and prove something to Canadians, in part because he has gone on record for his distaste for Canadian films for their "boring quality" at times; Bradley had died in 2003, and Shebib uses the death of his character to shape the plot for this feature. Surely he wanted to make an interesting bookend by way of making a movie that resembles something made for television with the capability for twists like a melodrama, for which it serves as a fill-in-the-blank for things you either wanted to know or didn't from before in the original - albeit with a lessened blow in its ending. Obviously it is a better-made film in terms of its look (four decades will do that), and the acting is just as fine as it was before (i.e. not awards bait), and it certainly tries to pull at the strings left hanging from before with reasoning - the result is an okay movie that either gives you enough of the answers that Shebib urges to reach or it seems unnecessary to really find out. Honestly, some things are easier to leave buried, but whatever, at least it is Shebib behind the wheel and not someone else, much like a reunion between old friends that doesn't end in passive boredom or worse. Look, if you want to see what happens to folks that ran off to Vancouver for a new start after they assaulted a clerk and left a wife and child, the result will have some payoff that makes it more than just an epilogue or a letdown. McGrath is wry and wistful enough in his balance of looking to the past and the present without becoming a shell of himself in the process - he makes the mark he wants to make without trouble in a bucket list road movie. There is a spark in Robertson that does elicit some interesting moments when paired with McGrath when it comes to tender amusement in chemistry for a time. Lemke comes around in the middle, used for the other turn of the narrative for exposition (particularly with the ending, which is drawn out pretty silly). Eastwood and Chernin accompany the film for a few scenes in providing perspective without turning into the peanut gallery. Moore is the last piece of the puzzle, playing someone affected by Alzheimer's disease, and the performance generally works out without trouble. At any rate, what we have is a decent return for all involved, one that tugs at the strings of the past without becoming strung along too tight to forge its own pattern. The passage of time ages us all, and there can be certain moments of the past that will arise at times for us to encounter once again, whether that means a bad breakup or a decision made in the name of supposed friendship. It is our reaction to it (whether one is haunted or ready to the memory presented) that makes growing up who we are. In other words, the truth always comes out, and it's our job to react accordingly to it. For a film like this, I would say it comes up just enough in the right direction to make it fairly worth what could have been a forgettable affair (or worse a letdown), one that Shebib can say accompanies his previous film and vision. There are quite a few sequels that commit the sin of just not living up to what was done before, but at least this Canadian one does what it can to make it a worthwhile affair.

Well, here we are in July. Honestly, I had intended to return to somewhat regular tradition of a Canada Day feature for Movie Night, but I ended up having to hold it a day because of timing (i.e. I didn't want to rush a review before work). Inadvertently, this is actually an anniversary review, because Goin' Down the Road made its premiere on July 2, 1970 (the sequel was released in October 2011, but that's a horror month, man). There had been rumblings about doing this movie for a few years (because even I eventually sneak up on sequels or spinoffs being made), but the Tribute to the Decades project took off and ran right over anything for July beyond the 1980s. As always, hope for a surprise when it comes to Movie Night, because the best plans are always improvised for writing...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

original image:

Goon.

Review #1693: Goon.

Cast: 

Seann William Scott (Doug "The Thug" Glatt), Liev Schreiber (Ross "The Boss" Rhea), Alison Pill (Eva), Jay Baruchel (Pat), Marc-André Grondin (Xavier Laflamme), Eugene Levy (Dr. Glatt), David Paetkau (Ira Glatt), Kim Coates (Coach Ronnie Hortense), Richard Clarkin (Gord Ogilvey), Jonathan Cherry (Marco "Belchie" Belchior), Ricky Mabe (John Stevenson), Georges Laraque (Huntington), Curt Keilback (Rod McCaudry), and Larry Woo (Park Kim) Directed by Michael Dowse.

Review: 

There is plenty to go around when it comes to hockey, the good and bad. Referees, dubious team management, the feasibility of a sport that can be wracked with head injuries, and the innate ability of bad timing within television broadcasting. But, I imagine there is something interesting to say about the role of the goon, an enforcer that is tasked with responding to violent play in kind. On the one hand, one doesn't really want to see their guy get decked out and potentially suffer short-term injuries or even worse in the future. On the other hand, the violence is what one can dig when it comes to seeing goons take one out on each other for the good of their team. There are plenty of examples to list, such as Slap Shot (1977) with the Hanson Brothers (played by real-life hockey players Jeff Carlson, Steve Carlson and Dave Hanson). Of course, there is also the case of enforcer John Scott, a beneficiary of voting for the NHL All-Star Game (via fan online voting, which as a fan I deem embarrassing for all leagues despite doing it anyway, mostly for baseball), or infamous enforcers like Marty McSorley and Todd Bertuzzi, but the real life inspiration for this film comes from the exploits of Doug "The Hammer" Smith, who co-wrote Goon: The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey with Adam Frattasio. Smith played for seven teams over the course of six seasons after being encouraged by Frattasio to try enforcing after boxing with the Golden Gloves; Jay Baruchel and Evan Goldberg (who you might recognize as the co-writer of films such as Superbad (2007) with Seth Rogen) wrote the screenplay for the film, one mostly shot in the province of Manitoba, and it seems appropriate to have a Canadian at the helm for director with Michael Dowse, directing his fifth feature (his most notable feature was likely his first with FUBAR (2002), a cult hit shot in digital).

So, here we are with a hockey movie for folks who want a few raunchy chuckles while seeing quite a few fights and blood to spare from the ol' hockey game. Strangely enough, this was not actually a hit with audiences upon initial release (making just barely half of its $12 million budget), but it became a bit of a hit with video releases that ended up with a sequel being greenlit in Goon: Last of the Enforcers (2017). There is probably a small comparison to be made to films like Slap Shot or Superbad (2007). I guess this can be a compliment, despite the fact that what we have here is a warmly crude average movie. It is probably the strangest example of a movie that is so earnest in its attempts at balancing heart and grimey charm. When it comes to "Canadian nice", I'd say this is a pretty good example of it, at least for a movie featuring a guy who finds his calling in beating folks up on the ice rink. Look, I care about what I see here, but I don't feel that I care enough beyond just saying it is okay - I think it is the cult hit effect, where if one hears about the notices, the expectations sometimes just won't meet the (loose) reality. The best things about the movie are Scott and Schreiber, really, and that generally will result in a good thing if one is up for it (because the journey is what matters most), and I guess it is interesting enough as a sports movie to go with some chuckles for a mild 92 minute movie. Scott plays the lead role with earnest curiosity that rolls with a film parading clichés as one might expect without being swept into staleness, friendly to what goes on around him. Schreiber provides a useful contrast within the theatrical ice-hitman in careful brooding interest amidst the fights. Pill serves fine with her offbeat chemistry when paired with Scott, which works alright for small moments off the ice. Baruchel gets to play the loudmouth, which might prove familiar for those who follow a sport intently (in theory). Grondin eventually ekes a few interesting moments, although really it is Coates as the blathering coach that generates the most interest (again though, sometimes the cliché roles work the best). As a whole, the hockey action is fine, the comedy and the atmosphere prove fine, the fighting is relatively reliable, and yet here I am wondering why I didn't really think of it as anything pretty good. It is as inevitable as when one watches Slap Shot, but somehow there is something more involving in that film that I can't quite quantify. Maybe it is the sensibility of the filmmaker (George Roy Gill vs Dowse), or maybe it is something more, but when it comes to hockey movies, there are a few good ones one can sport out and consider for fun. In that regard, Goon makes for a useful experience to sit around with, hearty enough in sticking its love letter to a hockey goon fit for the Canadian flavor.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ah yes, the Stanley Cup is upon us once again. Tampa Bay, Montreal. Easy choice: Go Habs.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Hugo.

Review #1559: Hugo.

Cast: 

Asa Butterfield (Hugo Cabret), Chloë Grace Moretz (Isabelle), Ben Kingsley (Georges Méliès / Papa Georges), Sacha Baron Cohen (Inspector Gustave Dasté), Ray Winstone (Claude Cabret), Emily Mortimer (Lisette), Jude Law (Mr. Cabret), Helen McCrory (Jehanne D'Alcy / Mama Jeanne), Michael Stuhlbarg (René Tabard), Christopher Lee (Monsieur Labisse), Frances de la Tour (Madame Emile), and Richard Griffiths (Monsieur Frick) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed)

Review: 

"And in my film, the cinema itself is the connection--the automaton, the machine itself becomes the emotional connection between the boy, his father, Méliès, and his family. It's about how it all comes together, how people express themselves using the technology emotionally and psychologically. It's the connection between the people, and the thing that's missing--how it supplies what's missing." - Martin Scorsese

"Every second the actor playing different scenes ten times has to remember, while the film is rolling, exactly what he did at the same point in the preceding scenes and the exact place where he was on the stage." - Georges Méliès

Yes, this is a film by Martin Scorsese, but as is the case with his films, there is certainly more than meets the eye with that statement. In this case, one can start with a legendary director that lived over a century before this film existed with Georges Méliès. He has been long overdue for a spotlight with his films (or at the very least more than one sentence), as he did a large amount of films (most of them falling under the category of "short", but this was late 19th/early 20th century filmmaking). He was inspired to create from a young age, whether that meant drawing all over his books or with puppet-making. As one might see from the film, he developed an interest in stage magic, which led to him having his own theatre to do said performances; he did indeed find inspiration with a showing of the Lumière brothers' cinematograph in 1895 (attempts to buy it were unsuccessful, but by 1896 he had found a projector to use and modify as a camera for his films). He made over 500 films in his lifetime (although less than half survive), with the most obvious highlight being A Trip to the Moon (1902), displaying the first iconic shot ever put to film that is shown a century later with this feature. Melies declined by the end of the 1910s due to a variety of factors ranging from World War I to finances, though he did find a living working a candy/toy stand in the Gare Montparnasse, while having a rediscovery from journalists prior to his death in 1938, which included the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur alongside a variety of future influences.

The film is adapted from 2007 novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, with John Logan serving as screenplay writer. One can hope that they do not grow tired of seeing a director's vision come out on screen with such interest and efficient, regardless if it is a great director or not. It is interesting in that sense to see a film from Scorsese aimed differently from his usual audience - basically, one can watch the film with their children or by themselves and have a good time. It is a film with a deep respect for its audience alongside cinema that makes for a fairly fabulous achievement (one filmed in 3D, although obviously I can't recreate the experience of said 3D). The film runs at a generally enjoyable pace at 126 minutes that unfolds itself and its surroundings with careful planning that makes a worthy adventure with plenty of visual appeal while also drawing upon the past with a well-touched stroke of the pen. The film is tasked with needing two worthwhile child actors to bridge key gaps in the film, and Butterfield and Moretz do fairly well with generating the presence needed to capture the wonder and curiosity needed from each that should be expected from films like this. Kingsley is capably up to task with inviting mystery and interest in those moments he is around, particularly when explaining who he was as compared to now. Cohen is up to task in some bumbling amusement without preening distraction, proving a useful foil and occasional focus. Others have smaller focus but do just fine with those little moments, whether that means a dutiful Stuhlbarg or Lee (who can make a few lines seem fun even after over 200 appearances, the most appropriate person for a love letter to cinema). It drives an interesting mystery well enough to useful conclusions that run the expected gamut of emotion with a nice atmosphere and understanding from Scorsese and his crew that lands for those who desire something with a mostly consistent balance of first and second half to go with a game cast for a worthwhile feature for its crowd of cinema and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Descendants.

Review #1558: The Descendants.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Matthew "Matt" King), Shailene Woodley (Alexandra "Alex" King), Amara Miller (Scottie King), Nick Krause (Sid), Beau Bridges (Hugh King), Judy Greer (Julie Speer), Matthew Lillard (Brian Speer), Robert Forster (Scott Thorson), Patricia Hastie (Elizabeth King), and Mary Birdsong (Kai Mitchell) Directed by Alexander Payne (#635 - Nebraska and #1169 - About Schmidt)

Review: 

I’m deathly afraid of being too sentimental. But a film should be emotional. There is a letter from Chekhov in which a young writer asks him for some feedback, and he’s kind enough to do it. He writes the guy back and says, basically, ‘It’s too damn sentimental. If you want emotional effects, you have to place them against a cold background, so they stand out in relief.’ I think that’s true.”

It's easy to make a film about fulfillment of the self and finding a way through crisis when you have a director ripe for it. Payne was born in Omaha, Nebraska (which to perhaps some surprise has had several notable people come from there, such as Marlon Brando) to parents with Greek descent. He developed an interest with film early as a child from viewings at the theater with his parents (noting several filmmakers that influenced him such as Robert Altman, Akira Kurosawa, and Luis Bunuel), and receiving an old Super 8mm projector from his father as a teenager helped in that regard as well. He made dual studies in college, studying Spanish literature and history at Stanford University before moving on to UCLA Film School that led to a master's degree alongside attention with his thesis film with The Passion of Martin (1990). While a deal with Universal Pictures didn't result in a film with them (the one script they had him write would be made - as About Schmidt, a decade later), he eventually found his way to feature filmmaking with Citizen Ruth (1996) and his breakthrough with Election (1999). Since then, he has made five further films (with a few even set and shot in his hometown) that have made him an interesting auteur filmmaker to follow through with his mix between drama and comedy with a majority of success with audiences.  

The film is an adaptation of the 2007 novel of the same name by Hawaii-native Kaui Hart Hemmings, who described her experiences growing up there as important to understanding ideas she found interest in such as the "complicated issues of land, history, and inheritance," describing the state as like a silent force more than just a simple drama (with this mix of tragedy and dark comedy being apparent as well in the film). As he has done for most of his films, Payne served as a co-writer of the screenplay (although without usual co-writer Jim Taylor, who instead co-produced the film with Payne), doing so with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, both of whom were making their debut as writers with a script that languished for a while in development. In any case, what we have here is a capably human film that hits its mark with flawed people living in a world past our first impressions (whether that involves a happy life or "paradise" living in Hawaii). It benefits from a useful cast that accomplishes most of what it wants to display about a life turning around on decisions to be made and ones made for them and finding a way out of being trapped by monotonous life or wracked in pity. Sure, there are no easy solutions to said problems in life, but it is how one steps into their contradictions and deals with it that makes them find something more than just living on some land day after day - a crisis of marriage, a crisis of family, and a crisis of business for 115 minutes that is just well enough. In that sense, Clooney does well in lining up these dilemmas and work it out with conviction that represents a worthy challenge to bring together for an actor like him, never drawing upon emotional smarminess or anything meant to guide away from the character as a whole. Woodley proves well in motion over time with this film, growing around the edge with well enough emphasis, and her moments with Miller or with Krause lend well to some worthy inspection and chuckles. Others make their mark in parts with touches of breeze or flint with Bridges and Forster, respectively, or folks for the climax with Greer and Lillard that make effort count. On the whole, it works in a majority of its moments in generating capable drama without lounging itself too much in pity or with condensation while leaving the audience to see where the path lies for them in resonating with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rango.

Review #1557: Rango.

Cast: 
Johnny Depp (Rango), Isla Fisher (Beans), Abigail Breslin (Priscilla), Ned Beatty (Tortoise John), Alfred Molina (Roadkill), Bill Nighy (Rattlesnake Jake), Harry Dean Stanton (Balthazar), Ray Winstone (Bad Bill), Timothy Olyphant (The Spirit of the West), Stephen Root (Doc / Mr. Merrimack), Maile Flanagan (Lucky), Alanna Ubach (Boo Cletus / Fresca / Miss Daisy), Ian Abercrombie (Ambrose), Gil Birmingham (Wounded Bird), and James Ward Byrkit (Waffles) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring)

Review: 
“I always wanted to do an animated movie. I find it to be incredibly liberating as a way of telling a story. It lends itself to more surreal concepts because you’re limited by expectations of total reality and I just think you can have a conversation with a peanut butter sandwich or Miyazaki turns the parents into pigs. You’re limited from the conventions of live action.”

There can be quite a dual nature to the art of finding a way into filmmaking, which is equally appropriate for Gore Verbinski. His first profession was in music, participating in a variety of rock band in Los Angeles as a guitarist. He sold his guitar for a film camera and found himself taking direction for music videos and eventually commercials (you may or may not recognize one of his ads involving frogs for Budweiser). He made his directorial debut with Mouse Hunt (1997) and has continued on with a variety of genres and general use of visual effects, whether that involves horror with The Ring (2002) and A Cure for Wellness (2016) or adventure epic with the first three Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003, 2006, 2007). There are a variety of films that this film took some inspiration from, ranging from films from Chinatown (1974) to El Topo (1970) to The Shakiest Gun in the West (1968). This was the first animation effort from Industrial Light & Magic, who you will have recognized from several films over the years (such as the Pirates of the Caribbean films), with Hal Hickel as animation director. The interesting thing is that Verbinski wanted to capture something "kinetic" with the performances, which involved having the actors perform with costumes and sets to have them feel like they are part of the Wild West, with the audio being lifted for the film, which he aspired to do as a "small" film when compared to his previous features.

A group of Westerns in the era after its golden age of the past try in some way to borrow some of the characteristics from before with their own spin on what the frontier of the Old West means. In this sense, we have a film of identity that draws upon quite a few Westerns in some sensibility that generally works itself out handily in entertainment with some finely-tuned animation and a cast worth following along with in this tale of critters in the desert. It has a strange touch that will appeal fairly equally for adults and children (more so older than younger) without becoming tacked and tacky in execution and charm. Depp is precisely the voice one could want for such an intriguing title character - amusing, wonderful and quite adept at following along in growing confidence as the unlikely sly lizard of the moment that gives a good push without seeming like an eccentric bit for the sake of it. Fisher follows along with capable drive and a zippy rapport with Depp for some moments, while Breslin adds some familiar curiosity in parts. Beatty proves quite enjoyable with a familiar kind of schemer with a folksy voice suited for what is needed to hear on screen. Others prove just as useful, such as Molina or Nighy, while Stanton and Olyphant bring a worthwhile chuckle. On the whole, it generally works out with its humor without seeming too much for whatever particular audience it aims for, finding its stride in a search for identity with interesting animation and a game cast to make a 107 minute adventure that I can recommend without hesitation for some fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bernie (2011).

Review #1206: Bernie.

Cast: 
Jack Black (Bernie Tiede), Matthew McConaughey (Danny Buck Davidson), Shirley MacLaine (Marjorie "Margate Nugent), Brady Coleman (Scrappy Holmes), Richard Robichaux (Lloyd Hornbuckle), Rick Dial (Don Leggett), Brandon Smith (Sheriff Huckabee), Larry Jack Dotson (the Rev. Woodard), Merrilee McCommas (Molly), Mathew Greer (Carl), and Gabriel Luna (Kevin) Directed by Richard Linklater (#645 - School of Rock and #1138 - Dazed and Confused)

Review: 
It could be argued that this is an oddball kind of film. After all, it is a dark comedy chronicle of a 1996 murder in a small town by a mortician that had respect from his community despite keeping his victim in a freezer for nine months. Of course, most films don't try to have gossip elements involving a mix of actual townspeople interviews and performers that likes to muddle the line of fiction and documentary. The screenplay was done by Linklater and Skip Hollandsworth, who had wrote an article about the case called "Midnight in the Garden of East Texas" two years after the murder. It is an interesting kind of film in what kind of story it wants to tell, being quick to not veer too hard into being either drama or black comedy, with the key to the film's success being Black and his performance. He plays it with a subtle edge, having the task of trying to make a person who we know killed someone from the get go be someone that we don't immediately recoil from, and he does a fine job in seeping into a kindly tactful type of guy that never seems inauthentic or too out-of-depth for Black to roll with - whether that involves trying to help a couple pick a nicer coffin or partake in singing practice for a show, being quirky without feeling like a bit being done for show. McConaughey (showing up mostly in talking-head segments) is fun to sit with for the moments he gets to show up. MacLaine is mostly utilized to show some dourness and compulsive control over things for a lady described by someone as one with a "...nose was so high, she’d drown in a rainstorm.” Perhaps the portrayal of Nugent could have certainly been expanded on in some ways, but she does play the final side of the film's triangle of main actors just fine. The other actors blend in without too much trouble when needed. It is interesting at times to see the gossip talked about in the segments involving town members that goes on long enough without choking the film's momentum or run-time of 99 minutes too much. With a budget of $6 million and a shooting schedule of 22 days, Bernie certainly stands out as quirky if not mostly effective entertainment that is given life through the portrayal of the title role from Black that proves to be a little gem that works itself out just fine in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

50/50.

Review #825: 50/50.

Cast
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Adam Lerner), Seth Rogen (Kyle Hirons), Anna Kendrick (Katherine McKay), Bryce Dallas Howard (Rachael), Anjelica Huston (Diane Lerner), Serge Houde (Richard Lerner), Andrew Airlie (Dr. Ross), Matt Frewer (Mitch Barnett), and Philip Baker Hall (Alan Lombardo) Directed by Jonathan Levine.

Review
It's not so much that the movie has a good balance of comedy and drama, it's that it handles its subject matter with enough sensibility to be more than one might expect. The writing (by Will Reiser, who had also had cancer, with his experience being the basis for the screenplay) is what helps the film gain ground almost immediately, with the actors having good chemistry with each other. Gordon-Levitt is excellent, showing a range of emotions without an ounce of insincerity, and he is a likable (if not perfect, but understandable) lead. The scenes with him and Rogen are handled pretty well, having some laughs (including the shaving scene), but also some fine scenes of drama, especially near the end. Kendrick is enjoyable to watch (while one could question her decisions as a therapist, the suspension of disbelief is enough to alleviate for this film), having a quirky charm that works nicely (I also know someone who has a bit of stuff on the car floor whenever I hitch a ride with them, though some of that is school stuff). While her and Gordon-Levitt have some decent scenes together, the movie thankfully doesn't try to refocus as a love story near the end, keeping itself focused but also keeping true to these characters, without coming off as strange as something like The Bucket List (#640) was. There's a decent supporting cast, with my favorites being Frewer and Baker Hall, who (while not in the movie for long) provide some dry elements that fit well with the film. Before I repeat myself over and over again, I'll just say that it's a nice movie that keeps itself balanced, with an excellent cast being the forefront alongside a well handled plot.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cars 2.

Review #730: Cars 2.

Cast
Larry the Cable Guy (Mater), Owen Wilson (Lightning McQueen), Michael Caine (Finn McMissile), Emily Mortimer (Holley Shiftwell), John Turturro (Francesco Bernoulli), Eddie Izzard (Sir Miles Axlerod), Thomas Kretschmann (Professor Zündapp), Joe Mantegna (Grem), Peter Jacobson (Acer), Tony Shalhoub (Luigi), Jason Isaacs (Siddeley/Leland Turbo), and Stanley Townsend (Vladimir Trunkov/Ivan/Victor Hugo), Directed by John Lasseter (#440 - Toy Story, #441 - Toy Story 2, #539 - A Bug's Life, and #729 - Cars)

Review
The first Cars was okay. In the sense that when compared to other Pixar movies, it suffered under comparison, but the movie along was fine. This? Meh. Remember how passion made Cars into something to credit? With this, it should've been buried in a box and never opened. Ultimately the problems all come down to the focus changing from McQueen...to Mater. Look, I don't hate Larry the Cable Guy, but after a while, I started to just loathe Mater. He worked better in the first movie because of the small town atmosphere the first movie had, where Mater wasn't with spies and inferior cars trying to ruin a Prix. When did we go from small town memories to SPY FLICK? That would be like if Toy Story 2 was instead a cyberpunk opera. Actually, that would've been better than this. McQueen and Mater's bonding was actually more interesting than Mater being a spy, because I wasn't yelling at the screen, waiting for the movie to get to the point. It's something when you want to see cars racing each other more than spies. At least the rest of the cast is alright, even if there are dozens of characters (and cameos). Admittedly, it's a good looking movie in terms of animation, especially nighttime shots, with the glow of the lights. Mater drags on your nerves, especially if you have little patience. It could be argued that he is up to the level of annoyance that Jar Jar Binks was in The Phantom Menace, though at least Mater saves the day. I like the idea of McQueen going to race in a Prix around the world, to see other cultures and other racers, now that the town is well off. Instead, it's a look into how silly Mater can be in other cultures, right down to swallowing a bunch of wasabi. I wonder if it would've been funnier in live action, with real people. Of course, if I wanted to, I could watch it on the Internet.

The "be yourself" theme works in theory, unless of course you meet someone who doesn't like you, or is a bully. Yes, even when you are being beaten up, at least you can be comforted in that they were being themselves. The idea that cars can apparently kill other cars is a bit strange, though this works into my idea that the cars secretly took over the Earth and just became sentient, disguising their act by acting as friendly as possible. The movie is good for younger audiences, at least, but it should strive better. We could get into the "animation shouldn't be just for kids" argument, but there are better movies to watch. The depth of the movie is lacking with regards to other Pixar movies, but maybe that was a part of the disappointment with me. Pixar is a pinnacle of great quality animated movies, before (Toy Story, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo) and after (Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Inside Out) this movie. If you have younger relatives, they might like it. But only if there are no other options. None.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Artist.

Review #697: The Artist.

Cast
Jean Dujardin (George Valentin), Bérénice Bejo (Peppy Miller), John Goodman (Al Zimmer), James Cromwell (Clifton), Missi Pyle (Constance), Penelope Ann Miller (Doris Valentin), and Uggie the dog. Directed by Michel Hazanavicius.

Review
Admittedly, the movie may seem a little like Singin in the Rain with regards to an actor dealing with converting from silent to "talkie" acting, with a touch of Silent Movie. But The Artist manages to make itself stand out with its sense of style, especially with its acting. This is a wonderful movie that manages to just be what it wants without feeling artificial or lacking. It looks very nice and the music is also enjoyable. The acting is excellent, especially Jean Dujardin. He has a certain charm to him that makes the movie irresistible to watch, especially with that dog as well. Bejo is also wonderful, working as a good lead with Dujardin, the two compliment each other well. Goodman and Cromwell are good supporting leads that make the movie even more enjoyable. The movie is what it is: Fun, relaxing, and all around just good filmmaking.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Drive.

Review #652: Drive.

Cast
Ryan Gosling (The Driver), Carey Mulligan (Irene), Bryan Cranston (Shannon), Albert Brooks (Bernie Rose), Oscar Isaac (Standard Gabriel), Ron Perlman (Nino "Izzy" Paolozzi), and Christina Hendricks (Blanche) Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.

Review
Drive is a strange film in the sense that it feels so retrofitted and could seemingly work in another era. Is it a bad thing to be compared to other eras and their films? No, not really. This is at heart a movie that gives you time to just watch it and not just listen to dialogue. Whether that's an aspect that makes the movie exciting/boring depends on the viewer's patience. Honestly the movie was fine for me, though I imagine it works best if watched at midnight, or a late time, as it just heightens the mood. The actors don't exactly have many lines to go by, but they do make the most of it, especially Albert Brooks. It's actually a bit surprising on how effective he is as a villain. He's a chilling character to watch at times, and he makes the movie his own for his scenes. Gosling and Mulligan do share a good bond with each other, Gosling is pretty effective playing a (mostly silent) character who looks like he'd fit into a 60's movie, seemingly inspired by Steve McQueen or even Clint Eastwood, which is a pretty good compliment. I like how he uses his expressions sometimes to help convey his emotions without dialogue. The supporting cast such as Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman are fun to watch, along with Oscar Issac (in the brief scenes he has) and Christina Hendricks. Are the characters easy or hard to like? That all depends on the viewer, though Mulligan is probably the only character without blood on her hands. The action and violence is subdued, but when it happens it is a good payoff. I like how the driving sequences are shown, it feels so natural and the lack of dialogue actually helps make it better. This is a strange movie, it shouldn't work, but it works so well at being a movie of its own.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #615: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast
James Franco (Will Rodman), Freida Pinto (Caroline Aranha), Andy Serkis (Caesar), John Lithgow (Charles Rodma), Brian Cox (John Landon), Tom Felton (Dodge Landon), David Oyelowo (Steven Jacobs), Tyler Labine (Robert Franklin), and Karin Konoval (Maurice) Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

Review
I admit, maybe I should've watched and reviewed this movie earlier in the year, or even earlier, but mistakes happen, so here's my chance to rectify that. So how's the movie? You know who makes the movie better than just good? Andy Serkis as Caesar. It is just more than performance capture, it's watching Serkis just disappear into the role, you forget about the fact that it's a person's movements being captured and later being turned into looking like an ape. It's fun to watch Serkis act in a sense without speaking, though he does have lines near the end, which genuinely surprised me, especially his last three: "Caesar is home", which is really touching to me for some reason. Maybe it's because his plot line closes smoothly, and the movie works best when focused on the apes. That's not to say the human cast is bad, but Serkis steals the show. Franco does fine admittedly, and his scenes with Serkis work well. Pinto is okay, but she doesn't really get much screen time to do anything, even Lithgow has stuff to do (though my praise of Lithgow is 90% due to his performance and 10% because you don't see Lithgow much anymore, unless you capture a Third Rock from the Sun rerun or watch Shrek), but at least the cast is enjoyable at times. The effects are good, it's fun to watch the apes when they march on the Golden Gate Bridge. The story is alright, I suppose, the movie is entertaining enough, and the end scene is brilliant and just makes you want more, like a sequel, which came out yesterday. This is a movie that while not as good as the original Planet of the Apes, is at least a good origin story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Muppets.

Review #522: The Muppets.

Cast
Jason Segel (Gary), Amy Adams (Mary), Chris Cooper (Tex Richman), Steve Whitmire (Kermit the Frog/Beaket/Statler/Rizzo the Rat/Link Hogthrob/The Muppet Newsman/Lips), Eric Jacobson (Miss Piggy/Fozzie Bear/Animal/Sam the Eagle/Marvin Suggs), Dave Goelz (Gonzo/Dr. Bunsen Honeydew/Zoot, Beauregard/Waldorf/Kermit Moopet), Bill Barretta (Rowlf the Dog/The Swedish Chef/Dr. Teeth/Pepe the King Prawn/Bobo the Bear/Beautiful Day Monster/Mahna Mahna/Behemoth/Fozzie Moope/Muppet Gary/Whatnot Hobo), Peter Linz (Walter), David Rudman (Scooter/Janice/Miss Poogy/Wayne, Nigel the Conductor/Bobby Benson), Matt Vogel (Floyd Pepper/Camilla the Chicken/Sweetums/'80s Robot, Lew Zealand/Uncle Deadly/Crazy Harry/Rowlf Moopet), Rashida Jones (Veronica), Jack Black (Himself), Alan Arkin (Muppet Studios Tour Guide), Bill Cobbs (Grandfather), Zach Galifianakis (Hobo Joe), and Jim Parsons (Human Walter) Directed by James Bobin.

Review
It had 12 years since the release of Muppets From Space (#377), and in that span the Muppets were confined to television specials only (Okay, okay, I admit to watching A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa when I was younger, it wasn't bad, but I don't remember watching any other special), until this film. I wanted to end this so called Muppet Trilogy of mine with this film because the first part of the trilogy began with the first, and so it only made sense to finish with the most recent (Muppets Most Wanted hasn't been released..yet.), and...this is a good Muppet film. It has its moments of fun, and Walter is a welcome addition for the Muppets, the human cast is interesting because Segel and Adams work alright together, and Cooper is pretty funny, and "Man or Muppet" is probably the most memorable song of the film along with being a really fitting one for a film like this. The Muppets are fine as usual and while not every joke works, the film still has enough passion for its subject to work. I hope you like this trilogy of Muppet films, as I enjoyed watching these films, and I hope you do as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Review #486: Kung Fu Panda 2.

Cast
Jack Black (Po), Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Gary Oldman (Lord Shen), David Cross (Crane), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Seth Rogen (Mantis), Lucy Liu (Viper), Dustin Hoffman (Master Shifu), James Hong (Mr. Ping), Michelle Yeoh (Soothsayer), Danny McBride (Wolf Boss), Dennis Haysbert (Master Storming Ox), Jean-Claude Van Damme (Master Croc), and Victor Garber (Master Thundering Rhino) Directed by Jennifer Yuh Nelson.

Review
Naturally, there is a sequel, given the first film's massive success. The film take a somewhat darker turn, but it works well to the film's advantage. Jack Black once again is effective, and he certainly leaves a good impression. The rest of the cast, especially Gary Oldman do good, and Oldman arguably does a better job portraying a villain then Ian McShane in the first film. The story is fine, and the animation is good, especially the animation during the flashback scenes. The action is good, and the comedy is nice, and this is a very effective film that leaves you yearn for more, especially with that ending, which is always welcome with me.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Green Hornet.

Review #451: The Green Hornet.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Britt Reid), Jay Chou (Kato), Christoph Waltz (Benjamin Chudnofsky), Cameron Diaz (Lenore "Casey" Case), David Harbour (District Attorney Frank Scanlon), Tom Wilkinson (James Reid), Edward James Olmos (Mike Axford), Jamie Harris (Popeye), Chad Coleman (Chili), and Edward Furlong (Tupper) Directed by Michel Gondry.

Review
This is one of those films I never had actually got to finishing twice. Around the end of the year (heh, big shock) when every test was done, our classes used to watch some films. The Green Hornet was one of them, though I never got to finish the film. Until now. Everytime I watched it, I had a few questions that popped in my head about the movie: So in the 1960's show, was Kato more useful than the Green Hornet? Was Kato always better in hero work than the Hornet? Why does it seem that the Green Hornet is eerily similar to Batman? And who is Seth Rogen? The answers to my questions are: There are none. Well, maybe one answer. The Green Hornet was created on radio in 1936, 3 years before Batman was, with comic books about the Hornet coming 4 years later, later spawning two serial films, a short 10 minute French film, and the short lived but memorable 1960's series with Bruce Lee and Van Williams. The history of the Green Hornet is probably more interesting than the film itself. What I mean is that Rogen doesn't provide too much to the table, he feels more like the comedy relief to Jay Chou than an actual hero. The Black Beauty is a beautiful looking car though, and the effects are halfway decent, though it can't make up for the mediocre acting and the mediocre story. This was meant to be a superhero comedy, but it feels more like a chore, and Waltz, while admirable in his attempts, can't liven the film enough. This would be a disappointment, but since I don't really know the Hornet, it's just a miss.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Review #236: Mr. Popper's Penguins.

Cast
Jim Carrey (Thomas Popper), Carla Gugino (Amanda Popper), Madeline Carroll (Janie Popper), Maxwell Perry Cotton (Billy Popper), Angela Lansbury (Selma Van Gundy), Desmin Borges ( Daryl), Philip Baker Hall (Mr. Franklin), Dominic Chianese (Mr. Reader), and Clark Gregg (Nat Jones) Directed by Mark Waters (#151 - Mean Girls, #204 - Freaky Friday)

Review
Based off the book by Richard and Florence Atwater, the film attempts to be a good-natured adaptation, and...it languishes in parts. Carrey does a standardized act, almost pulling "The Eddie Murphy Act" The rest of the cast do a standard job as well, not really going one way or the other. While it isn't really much of anything, I don't feel any hate for it, I really can't find much hate for something I hadn't heard much of in the first place. If I had to list something else for this film, I'd list the penguins are not "Stuffed Animal Approved" by my stuffed penguin. *snickers* Alright, alright, I kid.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Green Lantern.

Review #220: Green Lantern. Cast Ryan Reynolds (Hal Jordan / Green Lantern), Blake Lively (Carol Ferris), Peter Sarsgaard (Hector Hammond), Mark Strong (Sinestro), Angela Bassett (Dr. Amanda Waller), Tim Robbins (Senator Robert Hammond), Temuera Morrison (Abin Sur / Green Lantern), Geoffrey Rush (Tomar-Re / Green Lantern), Michael Clarke Duncan (Kilowog / Green Lantern), Taika Waititi (Thomas Kalmaku), and Clancy Brown (Parallax) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - Goldeneye, #285 - Casino Royale) Review My first question is: "This was made for how much?" The answer is $200 Million, which is odd, given that this film doesn't look like it. This is Warner Brothers' attempt to venture into a different superhero not named Batman or Superman. And it...doesn't work out well. The biggest problem is that it has tries for more style then substance. Reynolds is allright, given what he has to work with, but the other characters aren't really memorable. I kept calling the others "girl interest", and "Guy with effects make him look like the kid from Mask". The effects aren't even that memorable. My question is "How come the costume looks CGI and not just something they could've made?" Is it me or does Jordan's mask look like a [green] Fruit Roll-Up stretched out? Maybe it's just me. All in all, the film just isn't as memorable, and is a failure by Warner and DC to have a new hero franchise to rival Marvel (Which already has a giant head start that won't end anytime soon) But Reynolds is succeeding either way (Given that he'll be playing Deadpool a few years from now) And lastly, this film blows the opportunity for Lantern to rise to something more. Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Puss in Boots.

Review #213: Puss in Boots.

Cast
Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Zach Galifianakis (Humpty Alexander Dumpty), Salma Hayek (Kitty Softpaws), Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris (Jack and Jill), Constance Marie (Imelda), Guillermo del Toro (Comandante, Moustache Man), and Mike Mitchell (Andy "Jack" Beanstalk) Directed by Chris Miller (#163 - Shrek the Third)

Review
This film is a spin-off of the Shrek franchise, and it works well enough to not have to depend on it for guidance. The acting is good, with Banderas stealing the show. The film has some good action and while not being entirely different from other animated films, it has enough charm in visuals and gold old action with some fun to win out in the end. It's good stuff for cat lovers as well (I couldn't resist saying that).

To the 97 people who have read this review: How did this review attract you, and how has this managed to be the highest rated one ever?

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.