Frozen Review

Last year, I was pretty certain that "Wreck-It Ralph" was Disney Animation's best film since the days of “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Lion King.” A short year later, I find myself having to retract that statement. "Frozen" is most definitely Disney's best film in an entire generation, and given the studio's recent string of hits ("Enchanted", "The Princess and the Frog", "Tangled", and the aforementioned "Wreck-It Ralph"), that's saying quite a lot.

A long overdue adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's classic fairy tale "The Snow Queen", "Frozen" follows the two princesses of the mythical land of Arendelle, Anna (Kristin Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). Elsa was born with the power to control snow and ice, which she uses to amuse herself and Anna as children. The fun quickly goes awry when Elsa's powers almost kill Anna, which results in the king and queen isolating the two so Elsa can learn to control her power while Anna is left with no recollection of her sister's power.

Through the first of several excellent songs, we see Anna and Elsa live their lives separated, until the king and queen pass away and Elsa is to become the new queen of Arendelle. Unfortunately, Elsa hasn't completely gotten everything under control, and her insecurities (along with an argument with Anna) lead her to accidentally unleash her power upon Arendelle. Elsa retreats to the mountains to protect her sister and the kingdom, but leaves the land in an eternal winter as a result of her loss of control. Anna takes it upon herself to go after Elsa and bring her back, enlisting the aid of Kristoff (Jonathon Groff), and later the living snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) along the way.

"Frozen" is a prime example of classic Disney storytelling at its finest, perfectly blending familiar and fresh elements, and the messages it offers the target audience are among the best in the studio's entire history. The biggest surprise of “Frozen” is probably how it breaks the mold of the stereotypical Disney fairy tale. For example, “Frozen” tackles the stereotype of rushed romance, something that was also addressed in "Enchanted", but that was as a satire of the classic Disney films. Here, it's not only addressed, but the message is even more poignant since it's in an actual Disney story and not just a satire of one. The trolls of Arendelle give the film's other message that "everyone's a bit of a fixer-upper", something that kids today absolutely need to hear in a time when people are constantly ostracized for being anything less than perfect, so kudos to Disney for these messages.

The characters are also excellent, and among some of Disney's finest. Elsa and Anna have a dynamic relationship, despite growing up on opposite sides of Elsa's bedroom door, and it's their relationship that drives the movie. Elsa’s inner-turmoil makes her one of the most interesting Disney characters, if not one of the most interesting Disney princesses in recent memory.

Anna has spent most of her life in isolation as Elsa refuses to let her in because of what happened when they were children. Because of this, she rushes into an engagement with Prince Hans (Santino Fontana), even though she doesn’t know that true love takes more than a day to discover. Despite Anna's questionable life choices in romance, her never ending optimism and determination to get through to Elsa is commendable. I don't think most Disney die-hards will have any problem if both Anna and Elsa are added to the Disney Princess line, as both serve as good role models in their own ways.

Kristoff is a nice romantic interest for Anna, and his strange and unusual connection with his reindeer Sven is often hilarious. However, it's Josh Gad's Olaf that steals the show when it comes to the film's comedy, and "Frozen" is very funny mostly due to his character and Gad's performance and delivery. Olaf is a perfect example of comic relief done right and for Disney to accomplish that is really saying something.
The original songs by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez are simply excellent. Elsa's power-ballad "Let It Go" is a real showstopper, and Menzel absolutely nails it. All of the other songs are a ton of fun, and there isn't a bad one among them. Listening to the soundtrack, it's very hard to distinguish "Frozen" from a Broadway show, and I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to the stage in the near future.

"Frozen" is an all-around excellent film from Disney Animation. The story, characters, songs and animation are all top-notch, and the poignant and mature messages make "Frozen" more than the average Disney Princess tale.

4.5/5 Stars

World War Z Review

“World War Z” is a zombie thriller that lacks a bite

How many zombie movies need to be made before the genre becomes stale?  Apparently Hollywood isn’t done milking the undead cash cow yet, as this summer saw the release of “World War Z,” one of many zombie movies to come out in the years since the huge success of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” reinvigorated interest in the genre. 

The hype for this movie was understandably big, since it is based on the highly praised novel of the same name in addition to having Brad Pitt in front of and behind the camera as a producer.  Unfortunately, numerous production problems plagued the project, and it shows in the finished film.  What we have instead, is an underwhelming run-of-the-mill summer action flick than a fully realized adaptation.

The story of “World War Z” plays out like almost every other zombie film you’ve seen before.  A virus pops up that turns people into killing machines, spreading across the globe while a former government official tries to protect his family while on a globe-trotting crusade to find a cure for the pandemic.  The main plot points are so redundant that you could make a checklist of material from other zombie and pandemic media, and “World War Z” would fulfill almost every one of them.

A montage of news coverage on the start of the infection during the opening credits?  Check.  Scenes of our main characters’ perfect life before the chaos hits them?  Check.  A scene where the hero finds a seemingly safe haven only to see it come crashing down in a matter of minutes despite all his warnings?  Check.  The list goes on and on.

Despite the fast pace of the movie and constant action, there’s a distinct lack of tension in “World War Z.”  This can be attributed to two things.  

The first is the toned down violence in the movie.  It’s glaringly obvious that serious cuts were made in order to get the box-office-success-guaranteed PG-13 rating.  In spite of all the violence that occurs in “World War Z”, there is little to no blood in the movie.  Considering that this is a genre that pretty much thrives on guts and gore, and that much more gruesome zombie violence is shown on TV, it really takes the grit out of a movie that could seriously benefit from it.

The second aspect hindering the film’s tension is Brad Pitt’s constant presence throughout.  That’s not a knock against Pitt’s performance, he does well enough with what he’s given, but no matter how bad the situations get in the movie you know he’s going to walk away from them.  He’s usually the sole survivor of a major attack, and every other nameless character he comes across is just fodder for the zombies.

Speaking of the zombies in this movie, they’re probably the most interesting part of the whole film.  The writers put an interesting twist on the way the zombies behave.  Instead of devouring their victims, they simply bite them and move on, causing people to turn in a matter of 12 seconds (the movie literally counts the time for the audience), thus causing the infection’s rapid spread.  They’re also a little more intelligent than your normal flesh-craving animal, as they can figure out how to get to their prey by doing things like breaking windows and forming giant piles to get over walls. 

They reminded me a lot of the velociraptors from “Jurassic Park,” which in turn reminded me that I could be watching a much better movie.

It should be a noted that the film is resolved by an act of sheer dumb luck, further cementing Pitt’s character as an invincible force, and the closing narration leaves the movie open for a sequel.  If this does occur, and the sequel only consists of more of this, you can count me out.

For all of the major problems in “World War Z,” it’s never boring.  The action is well staged and the final sequence at a medical facility is genuinely eerie, invoking chilling memories of playing the old “Resident Evil” games. 

To the film’s credit I’ve never read the original book, but I really want to now, as I’ve heard so many good things about it.  It’s just a shame that the movie feels more like a heavily manufactured victim of the current Hollywood process than a great adaptation of supposedly great source material.  At its best, “World War Z” is a decent rainy Friday night rental and a redundant wasted opportunity at its worst. 

Proceed with caution.

Rating: 2.5/5 Stars

Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter

Game Review: DuckTales Remastered

Life's been like a hurricane for people who grew up with Disney's Saturday morning cartoon "DuckTales" ever since Capcom and WayForward Technologies revealed a remake of the show's classic NES game under the simple title "DuckTales Remastered".  Now that the game is finally out, the question on everyone's mind is "Does 'DuckTales' hold up after all this time?" The short answer to that question is a fortunate yes, but not without a few small bumps in the road.

When you get right down to it, "DuckTales Remastered" is essentially the same game from almost 25(!) years ago, although WayForward has put much more emphasis on storytelling.  The story pretty much plays out like a typical episode of the original TV show: Scrooge and his nephews Huey, Dewey, and Louie discover a lead on some lost treasure and embark on a globe-trotting expedition to find it, encountering classic DuckTales villains like Magica De Spell and Flintheart Glomgold who are there to stop them at every turn.  What really brings the story to life is the inclusion of the original voice actors from the cartoon, most notably Alan Young as Scrooge, who at 93 years old can still do the voice as if the show was still running today.

The only downside to the bigger emphasis on the story is that the game is constantly interrupted by cut scenes that are fun to watch your first time through, but you'll find yourself skipping them as you replay the levels.  Every time you collect an important item, the game stops so Scrooge can talk about it.  It's not a huge problem in most of the levels, but the Amazon level (my personal favorite stage) is plagued by several instances of this.  It's not that big a problem, just be prepared to hit that Skip button a lot.

When bringing "DuckTales" to the current gaming generation, WayForward made the right choice in mixing 2D animated character sprites with 3D backgrounds.  They blend seamlessly and on top of that, the animation on the sprites is wonderful.  "DuckTales" has never looked better than it does here, and I'm going to say that "DuckTales Remastered" has set the standard on how to update the look of a classic game while staying true to the original.

Speaking of setting the standard on updating classics, the music is also incredible.  If you thought the music of the show and original game was infectiously catchy, just wait until you hear what composer Jake Kaufman cooked up. Every track does its original counterpart justice, and in my opinion, actually improves on a lot of them.  Rather than go the way of Nintendo and use full blown orchestrations, Kaufman kept it simple by updating the original tracks while retaining the charm of 8-bit sound.  A nice addition is the option to play the game with the original 8-bit tracks after the first play-through.

Seriously, give this guy some kind of award or something. I could listen to this for days.

Level designs are also well thought out, considering that they're exact replicas of the original game. Even though hidden treasures that die-hard fans of the original loved collecting have been removed, there are still plenty of secret areas to discover, housing treasure chests full of diamonds to increase Scrooge's money intake.  The game still plays exactly like the original as well.  "DuckTales Remastered" only requires two buttons, a jump button and a button to control Scrooge's cane.  The biggest change that has been implemented is that Scrooge's pogo jump is now performed by holding the cane button, instead of holding down on the D-pad in addition to the cane button, like in the original.  Unfortunately, it's not always responsive, and was the cause of quite a few unwarranted and frustrating deaths.  On the flip-side of the problem, there is an option to do the pogo jump the old way and it's much more responsive.

The most revamped aspect of the original game would be the boss battles.  They're the same bosses, but they've been reworked to be more than just bouncing off their heads.  You'll have to dodge crushing pillars of rock, fireballs, etc.  These are nice additions, but they tend to get repetitive after you get the patterns down.  The best fights are against Magica De Spell in the Transylvania stage and the final boss, Count Dracula Duck.  A note about the final boss: there's an additional part of the level after you beat Dracula Duck, and it is very frustrating and borderline cheap. Remember those frustrating accidental deaths I mentioned before? Three guesses as to where most of them occurred, and on harder difficulties that use Game Overs, prepare for some good old-fashioned gamer rage.  Bottom line, the game could have done without it.

So what do you do with all the money collected from the levels?  You have two options: you can either spend it on concept art, character designs, even art from the TV show. WayForward left no stone unturned in showing players what went into the game's creation and fans should be pleasantly satisfied.  Your other option is to swim around in it.  Finally, you can recreate the now iconic shot of Scrooge diving headfirst into his money vault, bathing in his riches for as long as you want.  It adds almost nothing to the actual game, but it's still fun just for the novelty of it.  The game may be designed to be conquered in a few hours, but there's plenty to come back for.

Despite a few minor hindrances, "DuckTales Remastered" is a good old-fashioned blast from the past.  The story is fun (while it lasts), the voice acting is outstanding, the gameplay and music faithful, and the art design is downright gorgeous.  Simply put: if you have any nostalgia for "DuckTales", you owe it to yourself to give "Remastered" a spin.  The game is available for download on Steam, PS3, and Wii U.  For some reason, Xbox owners will have to wait until September 11 before the game comes to Xbox Live Arcade.

Rating: 8/10

The Great Gatsby Review

Over the course of my years as a reader and movie-goer, I have come to be less and less critical of movies that are adaptations of popular books.  I forgive movie adaptations of books like "Harry Potter" and "The Hunger Games" for leaving out elements of the original books because, when you really think about it, books like that aren't really meant to offer their target audiences a whole lot in terms of real substance..  We read these books for fun, not because we want to truly get something out of them.  Adapting a book like "The Great Gatsby", however, is a whole other matter.  The book is an important part of the history of American literature, so any attempt at an adaptation is going to have steep expectations. On the surface, the new adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" walks and talks like F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic but the problem is that it stops there and doesn't really get into the heart of what the book is about.

It seems unnecessary to go over the plot of "The Great Gatsby" since it continues to be very popular to this day, but for the uninitiated few, here's the rundown.  At the height of the Roaring Twenties, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves next door to the mysterious Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a "new money" millionaire who puts on lavish parties every weekend in hopes that Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), an old flame and Nick's cousin who lives directly across the bay from Gatsby, will take notice and rekindle their relationship.  Through Nick, Gatsby and Daisy reunite, while Daisy's "old money" husband Tom (Joel Edgerton) becomes suspicious of Gatsby and investigates him and his inexplicable wealth.

The first thing to know about this new adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" is that its directed by Baz Luhrmann ("Romeo + Juliet" and "Moulin Rouge!"), whose style I am personally not a fan of.  His style-over-substance approach may work in other movies, but not in the movies he does, and at times "The Great Gatsby" is no exception.  The whole movie is over the top, but it's not nearly as egregious as in "Moulin Rouge!" or "Romeo + Juliet".  The party scenes (all two of them) fit Luhrmann's style, though Gatsby's introduction is so overblown that it's borderline comical.  The rest of the movie feels subdued in comparison, but it remains vibrant, colorful, and loud, an accurate representation of the Roaring Twenties.  I'd say this is Luhrmann's best use of his style if it wasn't for one thing: that distracting modern soundtrack.  When the movie is constantly trying to represent the look and feel of the 1920's, hearing a modern day track really takes you out of the movie.  I almost lost it when Gatsby and Nick Carraway pass by a car blasting rap music.  I was surprised at the level of restraint Luhrmann had when it came to the style of the movie, but the soundtrack and unevenness sometimes took me out of it.

Luhrmann's adaptation is surprisingly faithful to the original source material, and it's clear that everyone involved had great respect for the book, but it is mostly faithful in dialogue and settings only.  The only major change/addition is that the movie is that Nick Carraway is writing the story from a sanitarium, where he is diagnosed as "morbidly alcoholic" and depressed.  It works fine, but I couldn't help but think that Luhrmann made him exactly like the narrator of "Moulin Rouge!".  In fact, a lot of this movie reminded me of "Moulin Rouge!", if it was a little more restrained in its style, but I'm getting off topic.

The main problem with the other film adaptations of "The Great Gatsby" was that they didn't accurately portray the themes of the book, and that trend unfortunately continues here.  The purpose of the book was to show how empty the lifestyles made the main characters, and I simply didn't get that from this movie.  The worst offender is in Daisy, an arguable candidate for the central character of the novel.  Carey Mulligan does a good job portraying her, but the back story that provides the whole basis of why she acts the way she does only gives a bare bones version in the movie.  The other characters fare about the same, great performances and (mostly) accurate representations, but the elements that ultimately define them are mostly glossed over.

Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of "The Great Gatsby" wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be, in fact I wouldn't go so far as to call it a truly bad movie at all.  However, it only reaffirmed my belief that film simply can't fully do justice to the book's intricacies and themes.  I'd say it's still worth seeing if you've never read the book before, if only to serve as an introduction to the plot and characters. Just please promise that you will read the book in order to get the full experience of what it has to offer.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Stars

Top 20 Animated Films: #20

How to Train Your Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon couldn't have come at a better time for Dreamworks.  The studio went from hit-and-miss to mostly hit-than-miss after this movie.  The story of a young Viking boy breaking his village's prejudice and fear against dragons wasn't exactly original, but just about every other aspect of the movie made up for that.  It's size and scope are much more impressive than what most of Dreamworks had done up to that point, it's characters are incredibly likable and some of them surprisingly well developed, the animation is very good, and best of all, knows it doesn't need to be constantly loud and spewing pop-culture references to hold your attention.  How to Train Your Dragon proved that Dreamworks can still stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Pixar, and their products have been consistently getting better ever since


Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter

Iron Man 3 Review

The summer movie season has arrived, and Iron Man 3, the first in "Phase Two" of Marvel's Cinematic Universe which will lead to The Avengers 2 in the summer of 2015, is leading the way in this year's blockbusters.  The shadow cast by last year's The Avengers is quite large, but despite a few problems and interesting choices, Iron Man 3 manages to come out as a solid follow-up to not only the Iron Man franchise but to The Avengers as well.

A few months after the events of The Avengers, Tony Stark is both obsessed and haunted by what he has seen.  He spends many sleepless nights building new models of the Iron Man suit (the official count is around 42) as he now feels he needs to be prepared for anything.  Even the mere mention of New York City triggers crippling anxiety attacks in the once headstrong hero.  Tony's emotional instabilities come at an inopportune time as the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), the leader of the terrorist organization that kidnapped Tony in the first film, has been threatening the American government with multiple attacks around the country.  On top of that, Tony's antics from before his days as Iron Man come back to haunt him in the form of  Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who has created a regeneration serum known as Extremis, and is out for revenge on Stark for refusing to help fund his company 13 years earlier.  When Tony issues a public challenge to the Mandarin, the Mandarin promptly responds by destroying Tony's home, along with most of his Iron Man suits, leading the world to believe him dead.  Left homeless and mostly Iron Man-less, Tony has to figure out the connection between the Mandarin and Extremis if he is to protect what he holds close to him.

Last year in The Avengers, Captain America asked Tony Stark what would happen if the Iron Man suit was taken from him.  Exactly one year later, we find out just that.  Iron Man 3 is one of the more character driven entries in the series, and Tony Stark is in front and center.  The movie culminates everything we've come to know about the character and just how far he's come from being the reckless playboy of the original film, to having to get by on the bare essentials.  It brings to mind the character arc of Bruce Wayne in last year's superhero threequel, The Dark Knight Rises, but I think it's done much better here.  Robert Downey Jr. has been a knock out as Tony Stark ever since he stepped into the role, and he's arguably at his best in Iron Man 3, playing a much more vulnerable Tony Stark than what we've seen before.  Gwyneth Paltrow is also arguably at her best as Pepper Pots here, as the stress of having a constant superhero presence in her life, and actually donning the Iron Man suit for a brief period of time.  Guy Pearce is also enjoyably despicable as Aldrich Killian, certainly better and much less goofy than Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2, though his plan comes off as a bit extreme when you stop and think about it.  And then there's Ben Kingsley, whose portrayal of the Mandarin is rather unconventional, and will likely alienate some longtime fans of the comics.  I've personally never read a single panel of the Iron Man comics, but I can tell you right now that I wasn't expecting the angle writer/director Shane Black took with the Mandarin, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it.  Those of you who have seen the movie, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Speaking of the angle at which the movie takes, Iron Man 3 is surprisingly comical and light in tone.  The other movies were like this, but the trailer for Iron Man 3 made it look like this was going to be much darker  with Dark Knight-like themes and villains, but that is not the case in the finished film.  Don't get me wrong, I was enjoying the wit and humor that Iron Man 3 brought but the other films, and more importantly The Avengers, had a better balance of humor, action, and character.  I thought I was actually laughing too much with this movie, but a lot of good humor is better than a lot of unfunny humor, so I guess I can't complain too much.

The best part of Iron Man 3, besides it's extra devotion to character development, is its action sequences.  From the destruction of Tony Stark's home, to the airborne rescue of Air Force One passengers, to the sensational climactic showdown where we see what Tony was up to during those sleepless nights , each sequence is more intense and satisfying than the last.  The new features that Tony puts on the Iron Man suit also lead to some very creative moments in the film, especially in the climax.  The action's not quite on par with The Avengers, but it comes very close most of the time.

I feel bad constantly comparing Iron Man 3 to The Avengers, but that's sadly going to be the case with all of these "Phase Two" movies.  Marvel has created pretty big shoes for themselves to fill, and despite the occasional odd choice and slight imbalance in tone, Iron Man 3 does pretty well for itself in taking the first steps in filling these shoes.  I eagerly await what "Phase Two" of Marvel's Cinematic Universe has in store.  Your move, Thor.

Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

Like on Facebook
Follow on Twitter

Oblivion Review

It’s rare these days to see a science fiction movie come along that actually shows some originality, instead of being a sequel to a previously established franchise.  It seems that for every District 9 or Inception that comes out, we have to sit through an entire Transformers trilogy until a breath of fresh air comes along.  Oblivion is that breath of fresh air, but it falls just short of being the modern science fiction classic that lies within it.

The setup for Oblivion is brilliant: In the not too distant future, the Earth has been ravaged by a war with an alien race.  The aliens, known as the Scavengers or “Scavs” for short, destroyed the moon, causing worldwide natural disasters, before invading Earth.  Earth fought back with nuclear weapons, winning the war but leaving the planet’s surface virtually uninhabitable in the process. 

Oblivion takes place a few years after the end of this war, where teams of humans are sent by a corporation to harvest what’s left of Earth’s natural resources, while also repairing drones that deal with the remainder of the Scavengers.  One of these humans is Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), who along with his assigned partner Victoria(Andrea Riseborough) are about to finish their service time and rejoin the human survivors on Titan, a moon of Saturn.  However, Jack is haunted by dreams of the past, and of a woman he once knew, despite having a mandatory memory wipe prior to the events of the movie.  Jack and Victoria’s seemingly routine life is interrupted when a capsule from 60 years past crash lands, containing Julia (Olga Kurylenko), the woman Jack has been dreaming about.  To make matters more complicated, Jack is captured by an underground colony of human survivors, who seem to know more about Jack’s operation than he does.  From there, a conspiracy is uncovered, the real villains are revealed, and Jack must find out who he can trust and piece together his past if he is to ensure the survival of the human race. 

Like I said before, the premise and setting of Oblivion is excellent.  The actual story, however, is a bit of a letdown in comparison as it quickly goes into been-there-seen-that territory.    The complexity of the story also creates more questions than answers, leaving quite a few aspects of the plot unresolved.  Not that this kills the movie or makes it any less interesting.  Oblivion definitely held my interest and kept me guessing throughout, but I can’t help but find it a little frustrating when the story starts off really strong but never reaches those same heights for the remainder of the movie.

The selling point for Oblivion  is its visuals.  The movie is directed by Joseph Kosinski, who previously helmed 2010’s TRON: Legacy, and the visual flair from that film seems to have carried over to Oblivion.  This is a movie that begs to be seen on a large theater screen.  Oblivion is gorgeously filmed and almost every set piece is borderline awe-inspiring, from the crumbled remnants of the moon to the barren wasteland that is Earth and what remains of its landmarks.  Joseph Kosinski has proven that he can successfully juggle his actors on top of his fantastic scenery, and I feel that if he was given a stronger script to work with, Oblivion could have been much more than it already is.

Another strong point of Oblivion is the performances of its lead actors.  Love him or hate him as a person, Tom Cruise has proven to be a great actor, and it certainly shows here.  The leader of the human colony is played by Morgan Freeman, and though he isn’t given much to do, he makes the most of his character and is clearly enjoying the role.  The other actors do fine, but the focus is mainly on Cruise, and they are mainly kept in the background.

There’s a fantastic science fiction film in Oblivion, it just isn’t fully realized.  The setup is wonderful, the performances solid, and the visuals outstanding and close to jaw-dropping.  However, it’s all hindered by a story that is littered with a sense of familiarity and is sometimes too complex for its own good.  For my money, though, I was pleased with what I got.  I don’t know if I would buy the movie when it comes to home video, but I can definitely see myself returning to Oblivion sometime in the near future.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Roger Ebert: 1942-2013

Today, the world lost a titan in both the journalism industry and the film industry.  Film critic Roger Ebert, whose reviews have been read and published all over the world died after a long battle with cancer at the age of 70.

Ebert was the main film critic at the Chicago Sun-Times for almost all of his professional career.  He won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1975, the same year that he and Chicago Tribune film critic, Gene Siskel, began their long television career on the locally broadcast show Sneak Previews.  In 1978, the show was picked up by PBS for national broadcasting, and in 1982, the two started a new nationally syndicated show entitled At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.  In 1986, the two critics entered into a partnership with Buena Vista Television to create the most popular of their shows, Siskel & Ebert & The Movies.  Tragedy struck the show in 1999 when Gene Siskel passed away after complications from a surgery to remove a brain tumor, but Ebert pushed on, bringing in guest reviewers before announcing fellow Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper as his permanent co-host.

Ebert was diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer in 2002, and cancer in his salivary gland in 2003.  Ebert remained dedicated to his work even after his years of treatment rendered him unable to speak in 2006, but began to slow down in 2010.  For the past year, he had Roeper and other guest critics write for his site in addition to his own reviews.  On April 2, 2013, he announced that his cancer had returned, and that he would take a leave of absence from his work.  He died two days later.

Roger Ebert was an inspiration to many, and he will be missed by countless more.  Farewell Mr. Ebert.  I give your life and career "Two Thumbs Up".

Here is Ebert reviewing one of my favorite movies of 

all time, Spirited Away.

Is Pixar Running Out of Ideas?

Earlier today, Disney and Pixar officially announced the sequel to 2003's Finding Nemo, complete with an official title, logo, and release window.  Finding Dory is set to be released on November 25, 2015 (it's worth noting that this will be the first Holiday Season release for Pixar since The Incredibles in 2005).  While the  full cast has yet to be announced, you can rest easy knowing that Ellen DeGeneres will be returning as the title character along with the original director, Andrew Stanton.  While I'm hopeful for this movie, it makes me nervous for the future of Pixar, as they seem to be coming out with more and more sequels as opposed to original stories that made Pixar such a powerhouse in the first place.

Finding Dory could prove to be a success, but what does the announcement say about Pixar's future?

Pixar is no stranger to sequels, with three Toy Story films, two Cars films, and now two Monsters Inc. films under their belt.  But while Toy Story and Monsters Inc. had justification for sequels and prequels, Cars and  Finding Nemo don't.  The original films didn't leave openings for sequels, but Cars made a ton of money through merchandise tie-ins so a sequel to that was inevitable.  In addition to this, there are rumors of a fourth Toy Story film, but neither Disney or Pixar have said anything about it.  All of this makes me wonder if Pixar is finding themselves having to rely on older properties for upcoming projects.

Another reason for concern is the mixed reception their recent films have received.  Cars 2 received a mostly negative reception, netting Pixar their first "Rotten" rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes (38%, which is pretty bad considering almost all of Pixar's previous movies scored in the mid-to high 90's).  Brave, on the other hand, showed a 78% rating along with Rotten Tomatoes' "Certified Fresh" title.  Much better than Cars 2, but still not up to Pixar's previous standards.  As it turns out, that's exactly what most people thought of the film itself (myself included).  Monsters University is going to have to be as well-received as Pixar's classics in order to alleviate people's worries about the studio's future.  After seeing the trailer, I'm not entirely sure that's going to happen, at least not for me anyway.  For now, time will tell if Pixar can recapture the magic that captivated us time and time again.

Oz the Great and Powerful Review

I'll admit, when I saw first saw the trailer for Oz the Great and Powerful, I thought it was going to fall flat.  The first trailer made it look like Disney was just trying to bank on the success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (which I liked the first time I saw it, but the novelty really wore off after repeat viewings) by taking the elements of that movie and putting The Wizard of Oz on it.  However, when the second trailer came out, I was more optimistic but not completely sold on it.  It looked like Disney was learning from the mistakes of Alice in Wonderland, but at the same time falling victim to some of the same problems.  Now, after initially writing off the movie all those months ago, I can say that Oz the Great and Powerful not only met my expectations but in some ways exceeded them.

Oscar Diggs (James Franco), known to his colleagues as Oz, is a simple Kansas carnival magician who wants to become more renowned in his work. The problem is, he's a self-centered, egotistical con-artist.  This all changes when Oscar is whisked away to the magical land that bears his nickname.  There, he encounters the witch Theodora (Mila Kunis) who believes that he is the great wizard that will free the land of Oz from the rule of the Wicked Witch.  Oscar is then charged with the task of killing the Wicked Witch by Theodora's sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz), who tells him that he will become ruler of Oz after he completes this task.  During Oscar's journey, he encounters Glinda the Good Witch of the South (Michelle Williams) who reveals a great conspiracy between the witches, and it is up to Oscar to find out who to trust if he is to free Oz and become a better man in the process.

The real highlight of Oz is in its characters.  The new characters, Finley the flying monkey (don't worry, this flying monkey isn't child nightmare-inducing) and the China Girl, are welcome additions.  In fact the scene in which Oscar and Finley meet the China Girl is one of the best scenes in the entire movie.  The China Girl is the sole survivor of an attack on China Town by the Wicked Witch, and voice actor Joey King does a great job with the material given to her.  The classic characters are also given unique spins.  The Wicked Witch of the West has become more of a tragic villain in recent years, thanks to Wicked, and her story here is certainly of a tragic nature.  In this version, she's the result of falling victim to her unstable emotions and her sister's trickery.  Speaking of which, the Wicked Witch of the East, an often overlooked character, is put more front and center here and proves to be quite a threat, with her sly wit and silver tongue.  Think of her as the female Loki from The Avengers.  The only two characters that were disappointing were Glinda and Oz himself.  It's not that I didn't like Glinda as a character, it's just that nothing different was really done with her.   As for Oz, I don't think James Franco was the right choice for this character.  He's certainly trying hard, but maybe a little too hard.  He goes over the top and comes off as pretty corny sometimes.  At least he doesn't go off the deep end like Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter.

Sam Raimi was an interesting choice of director for this movie, but he manages to blend his unique style with the Oz name and makes it work, for the most part (the trademark Bruce Campbell cameo is pretty funny). The movie starts off pretty slow, and doesn't pick up until the introduction of the China Girl.  I guess it's better that the movie got started then rather than later, but I was starting to get worried that the movie would fail to pull me in.

The movie is being described as a prequel to the classic 1939 version, which I don't agree with, but it honestly doesn't feel that way most of the time.  It's actually closer to L. Frank Baum's original book than the 1939 film was.  There are several nods to the original, and even a few jabs at it.  If you've ever shown disdain for the singing Munchkins, you'll probably be amused by Oscar's reaction to them in this version.

Oz the Great and Powerful isn't nearly as good as the original, but it was never meant to be.  It's very entertaining and occasionally pretty creative, the traditional signs of a Sam Raimi-directed feature.  It's got a few major problems, but they are partly overshadowed by the great characters and creative visuals.

Score:
4/5 Stars

Oz the Great and Powerful suffers from inconsistent performances and pace, but the characterizations, creative visuals, and respect for the original are more than enough to warrant a recommendation.

2013 Oscar Winners and Reactions

The 85th Academy Awards have come and gone, and this year featured many surprises and a disappointment here and there(at least for me).  The overall show was pretty good; Seth MacFarlane did a great job hosting and actually managed to hold back but still stay true to his brand of comedy.  The show itself was quite a success, with the exception of a pointless appearance by Michelle Obama. Now onto the awards themselves.

Best Picture:
Winner: Argo
I don't want to say this was a surprise, but in some ways, it was.  Argo didn't win any of the other Big Five awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Director.  Despite this, it managed to take home the grand prize as the Academy's best movie of the year.

Best Director:
Winner: Ang Lee for Life of Pi
Probably the biggest curve-ball of the awards, I don't think many people expected Ang Lee to beat out Steven Spielberg for Best Director.  Ang Lee has had quite a diverse career and hopefully this will get him more recognition in America and have him be known for more than that terrible first Hulk movie.

Best Actor:
Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln
No surprise here.  Presenter Meryl Streep didn't even have to open the envelope for this award.  I really liked the fact that despite all of the praise surrounding Day-Lewis' performance, he still sounded very humbled in his acceptance speech.

Best Actress:
Winner: Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook
The second biggest surprise of the night, Jennifer Lawrence has made quite a name for herself in this past year alone.  Hopefully, this Oscar will give her an extra boost in the future of her career.

Best Supporting Actor:
Winner: Christoph Waltz for Django Unchained
A big and much needed win for Christoph Waltz.  Hopefully he'll be able to get some better roles outside of Quentin Tarantino films following this award.

Best Supporting Actress:
Winner: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables
Again, no surprise on this one.  Anne Hathaway picked up yet another award for her excellent performance as Fantine in Les Miserables.

Best Cinematography:
Winner: Life of Pi

Best Editing:
Winner: Argo

Best Adapted Screenplay:
Winner: Argo

Best Original Screenplay:
Winner: Django Unchained

Best Foreign Language Film:
Winner: Amour

Best Animated Feature:
Winner: Brave
This is the only winner that I'm actually upset about.  Don't get me wrong, I liked Brave(I even own it), I just thought that the other nominees were much more deserving.  Wreck-It-Ralph and Frankenweenie had more creativity and originality in them than Brave did.  Brave was just put together using pieces of many other, and better, Disney movies.  Again, I liked Brave, it just didn't deserve to win in my opinion.

Best Documentary Feature:
Winner: Searching for Sugar Man

Best Documentary Short:
Winner: Inocente

Best Costume Design:
Winner: Anna Karenina

Best Makeup and Hairstyling:
Winner: Les Miserables

Best Production Design:
Winner: Lincoln

Best Original Score:
Winner: Life of Pi

Best Original Song:
Winner: "Skyfall" from Skyfall

Best Animated Short Film:
Winner: Paperman

Best Live Action Short Film:
Winner: Curfew

Best Sound Editing:
Winner: Tie between Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty

Best Sound Mixing:
Winner: Les Miserables

Best Visual Effects:
Winner: Life of Pi
This would be kind of expected from a movie people are hailing as "the next Avatar".

In the end, while Argo may have won the big award, Life of Pi swept the show, picking up four awards.  Argo and Les Miserables followed with three awards each.  Lincoln, Django Unchained, and Skyfall all took home two awards each.  Bringing up the rear was Silver Linings Playbook, Amour, and Zero Dark Thirty each taking a single award.  The 2013 Oscars were much better than last year's with many more surprises than I was expecting.  I'd say it's time to look forward to the movies for next year's show, but with the movies that are out right now we may have to wait a little while.  In the meantime, I've got some catching up to do with these movies.

2013 Oscar Predictions

The 85th Academy Awards are this coming Sunday, and they're already looking to be a lot more interesting than last year's.  The results of past awards shows this year have made it virtually impossible to say exactly who will take home the big awards, but I'll still make my predictions anyway.  Please note: I have not seen many of these movies so most of these are blind guesses.  Also, I won't talk about Best Short Film-Live Action, Best Documentary as I know next to nothing about the nominees in these categories, nor will I talk about technical awards.

Best Picture:
My initial pick for Best Picture was Lincoln, but now that Argo has been a hit at the awards shows, I'm thinking that the Ben Affleck film could take the show.  Again, it's very hard to say exactly but out of all the films nominated, I'm going with a toss-up between Lincoln and Argo.

Best Actor:
Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln.  This is one of the easier predictions seeing as Day-Lewis has been garnering so much recognition for his portrayal of America's sixteenth President.  The only other person I can see winning is Denzel Washington for Flight, but that would be a long-shot.

Best Actress:
While I would love to see Jennifer Lawrence or Quvenzhane Wallis win for Silver Linings Playbook and Beasts of the Southern Wild, respectively, I have a feeling that Emmanuelle Riva will win for Amour.  Again, this is mostly due to the fact that she has gotten widespread acclaim for her role, and has been sweeping awards shows.

Best Supporting Actor:
This one is also a toss-up.  While it's more likely that Alan Arkin or Philip Seymour Hoffman will win for Argo and The Master, respectively, I would love to see Christoph Waltz win for Django Unchained.  He was easily one of the best parts of the movie, and it would really help him gain some more recognition in America.

Best Supporting Actress:
This one's a no-brainer; Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables.  Again, her portrayal of Fantine was easily the best part of the movie.  With the recognition she's gotten and the awards she's already picked up, it's easy to see her winning this award with no problem.

Best Director:
This one is also very easy: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln.  It would have been harder to decide if Ben Affleck had been nominated, but enough has been said about his snub.  As it is, I am fairly confident that Steven Spielberg will take home the award.

Best Writing:
In the Original Screenplay category I would love to see Django Unchained win.  This was some of Tarantino's best writing I've seen yet.  However, Zero Dark Thirty and Amour seem more likely to win.  As for Adapted Screenplay, it's another toss-up between Lincoln and Argo.

Best Foreign Language Film:
Amour will win this one.  There's not much else to say about this this category or the other nominees so let's just move on.

Best Animated Feature Film:
Yet another category where I have absolutely no idea who will win.  It would be great to see Frankenweenie or ParaNorman win as it will be a tremendous victory for stop-motion animation.  I wouldn't be displeased if Wreck-It-Ralph wins as it will be the first time a video game based movie will have won an award like this.  The only nominee I don't want to win is Brave.  Not that I didn't like the movie, I just thought the other nominees were much better.  Studio Ghibli's The Secret World of Arrietty was much more deserving of a nomination.

Best Animated Short Film:
I'm really hoping Disney's Paperman will win this award, as it was very creative and, in some ways, groundbreaking in mixing traditional animation with computer animation.  I was also hoping to see Pixar's La Luna get nominated, as I thought that was much better, but I still enjoyed Paperman.

I could be completely right, or I could be completely wrong in these predictions.  My guess is as good as yours.  The 85th Academy Awards will take place Sunday, February 24 at 7 pm Eastern and 4 pm Pacific on ABC.

Review: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

As I sat in my room, one rainy March day, I decided to see what movie critics had to say.  A brand new movie was about to come out, Dr. Seuss' The Lorax was making people shout.  "It's atrocious! Abysmal! Dr. Seuss would be ashamed!" "But it's well-meaning and cute, it's really not that lame!"  I was sitting confused as I ever could be.  Was this a film that I should go see? Myself unsure and the reviews quite mixed, I avoided the film, until it popped up on Netflix.  I was still unsure, as I went to click Play. Would I find enjoyment in the film, or dismay?

Unfortunately, despite good intentions and some great ideas to make the original story work as a feature length film, The Lorax is another miss in the series of film adaptations of Dr. Seuss' works.  All the pieces were in place for the movie to join Horton Hears a Who as one of the better Seuss adaptations, but somewhere along the way the filmmakers lost sight of not only Dr. Seuss' vision, but of their own vision as well.

Dr. Seuss' story of a boy who goes to the Once-ler(voiced by Ed Helms) to hear the story of the Lorax(voiced by Danny Devito) and the destruction of the Truffula Trees remains largely unchanged. Except for the addition of an entire second plot involving the boy, named Ted(voiced by Zac Efron), and the citizens of the entirely-made-of-plastic Thneedville.  Ted wants to find a real, organic tree to get the attention of his neighbor Audrey(voiced by Taylor Swift). Led to the Once-ler by his grandmother(voiced by Betty White), Ted discovers that Thneedville lies in the center of a wasteland of smog and dead tree stumps.  Ted's actions attract the attention of Aloysius O'Hare, a powerful bottled air magnate who keeps the citizens Thneedville unaware of their surroundings.  As Ted listens to the Once-ler's story, he discovers that restoring the Truffula Trees may be more important than he could ever imagine.

As you can see, there's a lot going on in The Lorax, and that's it's biggest problem.  In stretching the material to feature length, the filmmakers ended up adding too much additional material.  There are too many sub-plots and side characters, and the movie actually devotes more time to these than the main story.  On top of that, a lot of the extra characters are just unnecessary.  Too much time is spent with the families of Ted and the Once-ler.  They're just included for more jokes that didn't do much for me.  The new villain O'Hare is about as boring a villain as you can get, he just wants money and power, and the movie would have greatly benefited from his exclusion.  Also, the pacing can be pretty off at times.  The movie alternates from Ted's story to the Once-ler's throughout most of the movie, and it's a good balance at first.  However, the final part of the Lorax's story is reduced to a two minute song(yeah, The Lorax is also a musical), and the last 20 minutes of the movie focuses on the boring sub-plot with the boring villain.

Also lacking is the voice acting.  Not that it's bad, it's just that I can tell that these are celebrities talking into a microphone.  Also, some of the actors have such distinct voices it's hard not to be distracted.  Every time Ed Helms speaks or sings, I just hear Andy from The Office or Stu from The Hangover.  However, his voice for the much older Once-ler is very good.  By far the weakest link in the chain of celebrity voice actors is Taylor Swift.  She's trying her best, but half the time her voice acting doesn't match with the animation in the expressions on her character and it's really distracting.  The rest of the cast does a fine enough job, but you can tell they were cast for marketing reasons.

And that's how a lot of The Lorax feels; like the filmmakers got more concerned with making the movie more marketable, and that really betrays the message of the original story.  The message is still there, in fact it felt like the movie was trying to force it down my throat half the time, but it gets lost in the movie's huge Hollywood production values.

If there's anything good that came out of The Lorax, it would be the animation and design of the movie.  Everything looks like it was plucked right from the brain of Dr. Seuss.  The comedic timing is also very good, with character's expressions getting more laughs than the jokes that come out of their mouths.  The scenes involving the Once-ler's story are pretty good, as they're the parts that are the most faithful to the book, and I'm fine with giving Ted his own story, but there was just too much time devoted to it.  As the credits roll, artwork from the book is shown, which I'm sure was meant to pay tribute to the original, but to those who cherish the book and original TV special, it feels more like a slap to the face.  Everything looks like Seuss' original vision, but pretty visuals can't make up for the bad choices on the part of the filmmakers.  Just like the Once-ler got caught up in "biggering and biggering" his Thneed industry, the makers of The Lorax got caught up in biggering and biggering the movie's profits.

Score:
2.5/5 Stars

The Lorax means well and has some good moments as well some great animation, but everything the original stood for gets lost in the larger-than-life production values.

Why Disney's 3D Re-releases Failed

UPDATE: Despite the numerous reports saying that Disney shelved The Little Mermaid 3D, the recently released Diamond Edition of Peter Pan features both an insert and a full-length trailer advertising it.  A few days ago Disney released the exact same trailer online, however this trailer didn't make any mention of 3D, and only advertised a Blu-ray release for this fall.  This post will be updated again once Disney officially clears up the confusion regarding The Little Mermaid 3D.

For those of you who haven't heard, Disney has scrapped the planned theatrical 3D re-release of The Little Mermaid this September, and it's unlikely we'll be seeing more 3D re-releases anytime soon.  This news comes in the wake of Disney's previous 3D releases not matching up to the success of The Lion King 3D.  The re-releases of Beauty and the Beast and Finding Nemo each earned a little less than half of The Lion King's earnings, while Monsters Inc. only earned roughly a third.  With these numbers, it's easy to see why Disney lost their faith so quickly.  But these re-releases didn't have to perform as badly as they did.  There was definitely a public interest in the idea of seeing a classic film in a new way, let alone on a big theater screen.  The reason Disney's re-releases failed is a dual-headed failure in marketing on Disney's part.

The Little Mermaid 3D may never see daylight, but it didn't have to be that way

1. Audience Overload

When The Lion King 3D unexpectedly performed well, Disney must have gotten a big sugar rush  of excitement and announced four 3D re-releases throughout 2012-2013, three of those in 2012 alone.  That's simply too much for an audience to handle in a year.  Disney should have spaced them out to about one or two a year, or they simply could have nixed the Pixar movies and released classics that people actually wanted to see in theaters again.

2. Bad Timing

This one mostly pertains to Monsters Inc. but there's an argument for the other releases as well.  The reason Beauty and the Beast and Finding Nemo had more success was because Disney released them during times when there were hardly any high profile movies coming out.  But the problem with all three of the releases that came out was that they were already available on home video, whereas  The Lion King DVD had been out of print for a number of years.  Beauty and the Beast 3D was originally scheduled for release before the Blu-ray, but it kept getting delayed and eventually shelved because Disney didn't want to "over-saturate the market"(how ironic).  By the time it hit theaters, audiences had access to the new home video issue of Beauty and the Beast for over a year.  Where Disney really faltered was with Monsters Inc. Disney, for some reason, decided to release it during one of the busiest times in movie-going.  It got crushed by movies like The Hobbit, Les Miserables, and Django Unchained.  

The cancellation of The Little Mermaid 3D is unfortunate because it had a similar background to The Lion King 3D (out of print home video) and I believe that it could have been the most successful out of the four re-releases.  And who knows? Maybe we'll see it sometime down the road much like Beauty and the Beast.  But for now, Disney has delivered a pretty bad stab wound to the novel idea that they created in the first place.

Studio Ghibli's Latest gets a U.S. Release Date

Walt Disney Pictures has released an English-language trailer for Japanese animation house Studio Ghibli's latest feature, From Up on Poppy Hill, as well as given a release date of March 15.  The story, written by Hayao Miyazaki and directed by his son Goro Miyazaki, centers around two teenagers who discover life and love in post-war Japan.  Unlike previous Studio Ghibli features, Disney is not producing the English dub of the film.  The English dub is instead being produced by GKIDS, notable for The Secret of Kells and Summer Wars, though Disney will still be responsible for the international distribution.  It's currently unknown how widespread the U.S. theatrical release will be because of this.  My only reservation about the movie so far is the lackluster reception of Goro Miyazaki's last directorial effort, Tales From Earthsea, but the father-son team up has already garnered praise in Japan, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.

From Up on Poppy Hill will be in U.S. theaters March 15

J.J. Abrams Will Direct Star Wars: Episode VII

The past few months has been quite exciting for Star Wars fans everywhere.  After The Walt Disney Company purchased Lucasfilm this past October, they immediately announced a new Star Wars trilogy set to begin in the Summer of 2015.  This is great news and all, there was just one problem: Episode VII had to enter pre-production right away and Disney needed to get a team together fast.  They were quick to hire writer Michael Arndt(Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3), but the director position was still up in the air.  Among those approached were Steven Spielberg, Brad Bird, Joss Whedon, Jon Favreau, and J.J. Abrams. While Abrams initially declined the offer, Disney announced yesterday that he has signed on to both direct and produce Star Wars: Episode VII.

From Trek to Wars, J.J. Abrams is getting involved in Hollywood's most popular franchises

How has the community responded to the announcement? Very well for the most part, which isn't surprising considering the incredibly positive reception of his Star Trek reboot.  Which brings up another question: How will Abrams' involvement in Star Wars affect his involvement with Star Trek?  It's unknown at this point whether or not a sequel to this summer's Star Trek Into Darkness will be made(the box-office results will likely determine that), but if Paramount wants one I can guarantee they will want Abrams involved.  On the other hand, Abrams is not confirmed to direct the other two movies in the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy.  Abrams' involvement with the two franchises will likely depend on how well each one performs.  If both are successful(which would not be surprising), J.J. Abrams may have to make some very tough decisions in the near future.

Star Trek Into Darkness hits theaters May 17, while Star Wars: Episode VII is on track for a release in the Summer of 2015.

Top 10 Films of 2012

As awards season is in full swing, I figured it's time that I look back at the 10 best movies of 2012.  In order for a movie to make the list, I had to actually see the movie so many acclaimed films are off this list. Without further ado, let's begin.

10.

Not only was it cool to see so many different video game characters and references in one movie, it was great to see Wreck-It-Ralph not have to rely on these things to carry it.  Wreck-It-Ralph is the diamond in the rough when it comes to video game movies, and proved to audiences, critics, and (most importantly) studio executives that a good video game movie is indeed possible.









9.

Studio Ghibli could quite possibly be one of my favorite film studio, period.  They are responsible for some of my favorite movies of all time, and it's nice to see them grow in popularity here in the States.  The Secret World of Arrietty is very different from most animated films today in that it takes its time and is very atmospheric, instead of relying on constant action and pop-culture jokes to hold your attention .  In my opinion, this could go down as one of the most overlooked movies of the year.






8.

I've only recently become a fan of the James Bond series, and out the movies I have seen so far, this is by far the best.  As a 50th Anniversary movie, Skyfall celebrates everything that is good and goofy about Agent 007.  Throw in a great cast, several franchise in-jokes, and you've got one of the best action movies of 2012.  The movie is very clever in how it addresses the age of the franchise but also shows that there are no signs of it slowing down anytime soon.







7.

When this movie was announced, I was in the same camp as most people. "It's too soon".  However, I am pleased to say that this movie outdoes the Sam Raimi efforts many times over.  Everything about this reboot is instantly more likable than anything in the previous trilogy. This is a Spider-Man for the modern crowd, and is looking to be the series that many Spider-Man fans have been waiting for ever since the mixed results of the conclusion of Sam Raimi's trilogy.







6.

With the conclusion of the Harry Potter and Twilight sagas, young adult readers now turn to Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games series to satisfy their need for teenage drama, violence, romance, etc.  What's great about this series is that it actually takes its target audience seriously, unlike the Twilight Saga.  This series has everything: likable characters, a great premise and setting, and on top of all that there's some pretty decent satire if you look hard enough.  I have high hopes for this franchise and eagerly await the next installment






5.

It's a wonder why a film adaptation of what could arguably be the most popular musical of the last 25 years didn't get made sooner.  However, the wait was worth it.  The cast and crew of Les Miserables do something different with the material.  Instead of lip sync the actors sing live, and at the same time sound more raw and dramatic in order to give the audience a greater sense of realism.  The style has caused a split with the fans and critics, but in my opinion, I think it worked quite well most of the time.  Add in a fantastic story, characters, and terrific performances, and you've got one of the best musical film adaptations of the past decade.





4.

If there's one thing that Disney and Pixar continue to impress me with, it would be their short films.  Screened with Pixar's Brave, La Luna is hands down my favorite Disney/Pixar short film to date, and was far better than the main feature.  The short oozes with creativity and like The Secret World of Arrietty, doesn't need to be loud or constantly throwing jokes to hold your attention.  Just sit back and let it captivate you.








3.

As an avid fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth mythology, I was one of the many people counting down to the release of the Lord of the Rings prequel.  Despite my disagreement with splitting the story into three movies, I was extremely satisfied with the first installment.  While some complained about the nearly three hour long run-time, I felt that it allowed the movie to fully cover the source material and tie itself into the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  I have a feeling that the following installments will only get better.








2.

Watching a Quentin Tarantino movie is always an interesting experience because you know what you're going to get, but at the same time you don't.  Tarantino's throwback to Westerns is smartly written, funny, and of course, pretty violent.  Don't expect to see this on TV in the near future.  There isn't a bad performance to be found here, with Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson delivering the most.  Honestly, I don't have a single complaint against this movie, and it would have been my number 1 pick if it wasn't for...








1.

For a movie with four years worth of hype and expectations, The Avengers could have been a complete disaster in the hands of another director.  Fortunately, Marvel knew to give the director's chair to Joss Whedon, who has gained acclaim through his TV shows (Firefly, Buffy, Dr. Horrible).  It's a miracle that a movie of this ambition got the green light in the first place, and for the finished product to work as well as it does is even more impressive.  For being a game changer in not just the comic book movie, but in the way a movie is marketed altogether, no other movie sums up 2012 quite like The Avengers.