Lincoln

There were good parts, but it was really slow at times. I'm not going to judge it too harshly - thus the 3 stars - because my viewing experience was inhibited by some really annoying people talking loudly and kicking the seats behind me throughout the film, but despite all of that, I did fall asleep at one point, something I've never done in a theater before. Tommy Lee Jones was fantastic, though. Those parts really woke me up. Otherwise, it was an okay movie not one which I would accredit to Spielberg if I hadn't known it from the beginning - proof that just because it comes from him doesn't mean it's the best of movies.  It wasn't terrible, but not an Oscar-worthy film.

Skyfall

Definitely the best of the new Bonds! Skyfall was fantastic and Bardem is definitely one of the creepiest Bond villains out there. The more grotesquely evil version of Sean Bean's 006 - and they didn't have to make him disfigured to do so (although it doesn't mean they couldn't). This was certainly a twist to the whole Bond element and the addition of Ralph Finnes is great! The change up of having a younger, more cocky Quartermaster or "Q" is another brilliant move. This worked really well as we see Bond get a bit of the medicine he's been giving out to Q his whole life - but he's up to the challenge nonetheless. For the purpose of this review, I won't give away the ending, but it's hard - this is such a wonderful ending to this particular Bond movie. It's a definite must-see! I will expound on my opinions at a later date, but for now, no spoilers.

Parental Guidance

This film starred the hilarious Billy Crystal along with Bette Middler and Marissa Tormei and was a genuinely heart-warming flick that holds quite a few moments of hilarity, embarrassment, and tearful realization. If you've ever struggled with a relationship with a parent or as a parent, this film touches on it. It hit home for me personally because it seemed to be focused more on the father-daughter relationship . . . and I'll admit to tearing up in the end. It wasn't a brilliant philosophical piece, but it's simple truth-filled look at the often-difficult and bitter problems that stem from relationships were a welcomed change in the theater. Addressing things such as the drastic change in parenting styles and the problems overcoming old versus new in technology, teaching and tee-ball, "Parental Guidance" examines refreshingly examines a working real family - yes they have problems, but they are still together. It was certainly a fun cinema experience that had me laughing, crying, and ducking behind my coat (in the really embarrassing moments).
 Go see it if you get the chance, it's a fun one for the family.

Rise of the Guardians

This is one of the year's best animated films! (In fact it might be the best.) While Pixar's "Brave" was visually appealing and it's music making it well-worth watching, "Rise of the Guardians"s storyline was much more appealing, much funnier, and much more inspiring! One of the things I try to pay attention to in theaters is the reaction of children to movies intended for them.  There was a lot of laughter and children whispering to their parents that they liked one thing or another.  Honestly I was laughing right along with them. Well-worth the effort to watch in theaters or eventually purchase when it reaches the shelves as holiday classic on DVD.

Wreck-It Ralph

This film looked really good and had its moments, but there were times when I really wondered why this was a movie on the big screen. It was a typical storyline with nostalgic characters but nothing I would see again or even buy in the future. The kids in the theater around me didn't really find it all that entertaining either. The short film at the beginning, "Paperman" was much better than the film itself.  Yes, I enjoyed seeing the games I grew up with come to life, but don't waste your time on this one.  Sorry Pixar, not one of your best efforts.

Les Miserables

The acting was phenomenal for the most part, but in acting it out they sacrificed quite a bit in the singing. Hugh Jackman is a convincing Jean Valjean, and Anne Hathaway was fantastic as Fantine. The guy playing Marius had a great voice. That being said, Jackman doesn't have the vocal range intended for a songs like "Bring Him Home". The biggest disappointment was Russel Crowe. I usually love his movies (yes, I even loved his Robin Hood) but he seemed really out of place here. He really can't sing well, even though Javert's part is not that broad in range. He just didn't seem to get the character. Even worse, though, was Thenardier (ala Sacha Baron Cohen). He seemed more depressed to be in the movie rather than being his character. Helena Bonham Carter should have been excellent, but didn't really seem to work well with Cohen. There was no charisma. The sets, props, and locations were stunning as was the orchestra behind everything. If you're a fan, you need to see it to say you've seen it, but if you're going for the vocals, prepare for some disappointment. Again, it's not a flop. With the acting, sets, and the team of Hathaway and Jackman it's worth seeing, but I feel some of the actors were chosen for their names (like Crowe) rather than their vocal abilities. Even performances like those by newcomer Samantha Barks - who has sung her part on stage before in the 25th anniversary special and was absolutely stunning in her performance - seemed a lot more vocally restrained here. She has much more talent than she let on in this rendition. I think 3.5 sums up the rating as a whole.

Definitely an "Unexpected Journey"

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was a good movie. That probably sums it up well. The originality of the Lord of the Rings movies having worn off of the general public, the movie was good, but not great. I was very impressed with the acting, but disappointed with the portrayal of Radagast (exactly what were they smoking when they decided to do that?). Richard Armitage as Thorin and our new Bilbo (Martin Freeman) were wonderful - as were LOTR vets such as Ian McKellan and Cate Blanchet, but there was nothing that would make this film stand out as the best of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  Worse, there were too many side stories to follow than the "Hobbit" usually contains.  I know that much of the material came from the LOTR appendices and from the "Silmarillion", but the inclusion of that material to essentially make more money did not mean that this was a better movie.  I could have seen them making it into a two-movie set, but not three!  Not all is lost, but it's the worst of the Tolkien book-to-movie series.

Alex Cross

I have mixed feelings about the "Alex Cross" movie. I was very impressed with Tyler Perry's performance as straight-non-comedic character. I had not read the books so I didn't know what to expect. What I didn't like was how decidedly evil the villain was. I came out of the theater wanting to take a shower! I realize that there are evil people and evil acts, but that doesn't mean I want to see it on the screen.  I wonder one day when someone is going to sue a film company (or maybe they already have) for PTSD.  Much of what they showed was unnecessary. The acting was good, I just didn't like how they portrayed the story in the film. Of course that's just me.

Thrown For A Loop?

I usually like Bruce Willis, I almost always like Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I love Emily Blunt's movies. I did NOT like "Looper". I can't put my finger on it, but it wasn't the sci-fi rage that everyone talked about. Jeff Bridges was definitely NOT a good choice as the bad guy for this film.  I really felt that they put someone who couldn't act in with a wonderful cast.  The storyline dragged at some points.  I've said this before, but if I go to a movie, I shouldn't have to look at my watch during it.  True, there were some unique twists that I didn't see coming - but all I thought was "that's a nice twist" rather than "Awesome!".  I'll also grant that the ending was good, but it wasn't the astounding movie the critics claimed it was. See if you want, if not you're not missing anything.

Zombie Pilgrims . . .

I'm not sure what I was expecting with this movie, but "ParaNorman" was not what I thought it was going to be. It tried to be a combination claymation and Tim Burton-esque movie, and while it was interesting and pretty funny at times, I really don't think it deserved the critical acclaim that most were giving it. I understand that the witch trials are medieval by modern day standards (Salem anyone?), but this is certainly not one of my favorite films this year. I definitely won't purchase it.  It tried to throw too many stereo-types from monster movies into the film and combine it with a history lesson, but it just didn't work. Basically we end up with a disturbed kid and zombie pilgrims. 
And you wonder why it didn't make it . . .

"Taken" the Boxoffice

They're called critics because they critique things. I get it, they have "unique opinions."  But that doesn't mean that unique is always right.  In this case, it's not.  Taken 2 was well-planned, well-executed, and frankly a very enjoyable movie.  Having the original cast back was fantastic and the storyline was very logical. If they have to end on this one, it's a great film with which to do it.  If they carry it further, then they have a great set up.  I won't give anything away that's not in the trailers, but suffice it to say, the bad guys weren't too bright when they took his daughter.  They were just stupid when they took his wife AND him. It was a really great action movie!

I'm not quite sure I understand the critics reactions, for example one said that this was a "...softer, more teen-friendly approach" and another said that Taken 2 was "irresponsibly violent for a movie aimed at 12 year olds."  Seriously?  This was aimed at 12 year olds?  I would hate to be that critic's kid!  You should make Taken 2 a priority to see. If this is a kids' movie according to the critics, then I'm going to see a whole lot more kiddie films!

Hotel Transylvania: Dracula's Embarrassed by Twilight

I nearly laughed my head off (pun intended) when I watched Hotel Transylvania.  Using stereotypes of monsters and horror-figures from myth, legend, storybook, and cinema history, the movie revolves around the problem of stereotyping, generalizing, and relying too much on what others have told us to form opinions.  In other words, stock character monsters are afraid of humans.  The writers have been officially nominated for a snark award: best pokes and puns.  

(SPOILER ALERT BEGINNING HERE)  

Dracula drinks blood substitute. The werewolves have a so many kids that they can't control them and the mother is always pregnant. The only one who will listen to her parents is the little girl - who, in a Maggie Simpson-esque role, provides a ridiculous amount of information in her one speaking part.  Frankenstein (I'm ignoring the fact that it should be Frankenstein's monster) plays fart pranks while sending himself and his wife through the mail in pieces rather than pay for travel.  Mavis, Drac's daughter, has been home-schooled for 118 years and never been allowed out to see things.  Finally, and my favorite, Twilight is portrayed as an airline movie and Dracula is absolutely repulsed! This is just to name a few of things that go on in the movie.  

What really impressed me was the fact that everyone was susceptible to the humor.  Geeks, Transylvanians, monsters, regular people, movies, music, destinations - if it pertained to any stereotype worthy of monsters or man, it could be parodied in this film.  Bravo!

But there was a theme, too.  Prejudices can transcend generations because no one takes the time to see individuals and groups for who they really are - in other words, educate yourself.  Don't take yourself too seriously (this movie certainly didn't).  Take time to have a little fun!

I could stand on a soapbox for hours and try to make people see the importance of having fun... but I believe in learning from examples. So I'll just go to Disneyland instead. Or maybe just go see Hotel Transylvania again.

Blood-Sucking Prices

With all of the vampire hype recently, many people seem to be over-looking some of the other blood-sucking that's going on.

While I was in grad school, I went to a theater at the height of the recession (almost an oxymoron), simply to get a break from my studies.  I car-pooled with several friends who had been there before and was told to bring my student ID as they gave student discounts.  I was the first in line of my friends and proudly presented my card, despite the mug shot on the front.

"I'd like the student discount, please," I said.

"That'll be $8.50" the teller replied as she barely glanced at my card.

"No," I said, "I would like the student discount.  See, I have my ID."

"That is our student discount," she replied wearily.
Knowing how dangerous it is to hold up a ticket line for almost any movie, I paid and left.  My student ID had saved me a whopping 50 cents.  Oh boy, if I wait until I'm 55, I can almost buy a cup of senior coffee at McDonalds!

I just can't believe how much movie ticket prices have risen in the last few years.  Everything else has bottomed out, but the three things you need to go to a movie, gas, food, and tickets have gone steadily and, it seems irrevocably, upwards.  By the time I got a small drink, a box of candy, and helped pay my friends' gas money, I could have waited until it came out and bought the freakin' movie on blu-ray!  The total for that night? $26.50!

Friends of mine have told me that many of the local gas stations near larger movie theaters are selling boxed "movie theater candy" for a dollar, hoping that they will attract some of the crowds before the movie.  If theaters don't lower their prices on tickets and concessions, they might just find themselves out of business.  In all honesty I will admit that going to a movie is a luxury, a privilege.  But this is a blog about movies - so guess what? I'm complaining: it sucks!

Personally, I love my home-town theater.  It's much smaller (and there's no 3D) but I can go to a matinee, get a box of candy, and a drink, all for less than the cost of that one movie ticket.  Hey, I might miss out on that senior coffee later, but I think it just might be a worthy trade-off.

(images from: gotchamovies.com  and  dreamstime.com )

The Dark Knight Falls - Alot

The Dark Knight Rises? Really? How about, "The Dark Knight Falls"? Again... and again... and again... and in case you're wondering how many times you can break your back in a film and still live the answer is four.

 I'm going to be honest from the beginning.  I'm a huge Marvel fan.  I simply like their comics and movies better as a hole.  This doesn't mean that I don't like Batman, but I'm not biased towards him as a character and I think he's just another of your average superheroes.  (A lot of you DC and Batfans probably just fainted.)  However, when Christopher Nolan came out with the new Batman franchise, I was excited to see a whole new look to Batman and really enjoyed Batman Begins.  The casting, directing, and story were fantastic.  When The Dark Knight came out, I saw it in theaters, but wasn't as satisfied with the storytelling as in the first movie.  They tried to do too much in one film.

Now that The Dark Knight Rises is out and I've had a chance to see it in theaters, I am thoroughly disappointed with the outcome. There was a lot in the movie that just didn't make it worth the hype.   The numerous falls that just didn't make sense.  After all, Batman isn't immortal, he's just gotten training.  A diehard Batfan explained to me later that his training with Ra's al Ghul allowed him to heal quickly, thus explaining his back-breaking recovery - literally.  But this was not explained well in the movie and for those of us who don't regularly read the comics, it was hard to swallow.  As for character development, well, I would have liked to see more in most of the characters (with the exception of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's and Michael Cain's characters).  To be introduced to so many new faces, there was almost too much of a story for the length of the film.  Finally, Bane, in his Vader-esque dialogue seemed almost useless.  If you took him out, I still think that you could turn it into a better film.  Let me put it this way.  It's rare that I ever check my watch during an epic movie.  I did so at least twice during this film.  I could go on about the negatives, but I won't.  There were a few redeeming factors: it was indeed an epic film that was based on a comic book, it was the last of this Batman franchise, it had fantastic special effects, but overall I was sorely disappointed.

Snow White and the Huntsman - or Kristen Stewart Looks Mad Again

I'm going to be honest, I saw "Snow White and the Huntsman" because Chris Hemsworth was in it... and that was really the only reason to see it. I have to admit that it was a little disappointing. I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but there was a lot of copying from movies like the Lord of the Rings, Narnia, & Harry Potter in terms of props, camera shots and type of filming. The story could have been interesting, but lacked, well, everything that could have made it so.  Charleze Theron was good, but things just got really weird after Snow White meets up with the Dwarves.  Why they chose Kristen Stewart to be Snow White is beyond me.  She has two looks: mad and depressed - but mostly mad.  It's a shame, really, it had a lot of potential.

The Bourne Legacy

"The Bourne Legacy" was surprisingly good... in more ways than one. Jeremy Renner is simply fun to watch for 2 hours, but more importantly, the story was good. Although I read complaints from some of the critics that the movie was disjointed, I had no problem following it (unless of course it takes a disjointed person to watch it). I really liked it overall and would highly recommend it. Of course I was not invested in Jason Bourne being the only thing to come out of Treadstone, plus not being a Matt Damon fan may have helped me like it more, but overall, an A-.

"Brave"'s New World

"Brave" was one of the most visually appealing animated movies I've ever seen. The graphics were absolutely astounding and combined with an equally rich soundtrack, it was a beautiful scene to behold!  The story, too, was good. I particularly love the way Pixar tries to go in-depth into its children's movies. Without spoiling the fun, I thought this a poignant lesson on the relationship between mothers and daughters (not that mothers and daughters ever fight or anything) and it contained a good moral concerned with selflessness, responsibility, and listening. Overall, great job Pixar. While it isn't going to be on the top of Pixar's list of best movies, it was a worth-while movie to see. After all, you can't have a top-of-the-list movie every year!

The Men In Black Are Back!

I have always loved the MIB movies (yes, both of them). No, they're not Oscar-worthy, but that doesn't mean they're not just fun. And while "Men in Black III" may not be the best of them, it's certainly worth the watch as it has a unique twist to the story. Will Smith is hilarious and the time-travel aspect really worked. Josh Brolin was very convincing as a younger Tommy Lee Jones. Don't go to think a lot, just go to enjoy a fun movie! (See if you can catch all of the "Frank" references!)

A Hunger for the Games

While the craze to develop movies from popular books continues, it's not all a ridiculous conglomeration of messed up storylines. Some screen-writers and directors actually care about whether or not their movies reflect the integrity of the titles they're stealing. "The Hunger Games" is no exception. Director Gary Ross, who was also one of the writers for the screenplay adaptation, brought author Suzanne Collins in as one of the script writers to ensure that the movie retained the essence of the popular series. This has to be one of the best moves ever made. Yes, there are some minor diversions and differences, but overall, the movie is the storyline almost exactly. With brilliant casting choices - using talent rather than big names in most cases - the Hunger Games movie tells the heart-wrenching story of Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark two of the twenty-four children who are forced to play a role in the most evil invention since the holocaust: Panem's hunger games. A sadistic pageant, the hunger games forces children to fight to the death to remind the country that it should never rise up in rebellion again. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, and Liam Hemsworth are just a few of the fantastic cast that make this movie well-worth watching. If you haven't read the book, go do so now. And read it before you see the movie.  It really is a great adaptation. This movie is proof that filmmakers are finally beginning to take books seriously, understanding that they are popular for a reason, and deserve to be turned into quality movies. 

Avengers, Assemble!

The geek inside me was going bonkers to begin with.  The Marvel comic fan in me was bouncing off walls.  Together, I was going ballistic waiting for this movie to come out.  I was NOT disappointed.  Concerning "The Avengers" All I can say is OMG!!!! I have seen this 5 times in theaters and I'd see it again! This has to be one of my most favorite movies EVER! I love the cast and the script and the direction! It's AWESOME! You can't go wrong if you see this film! The casting is perfect - even with Mark Ruffalo as Banner/Hulk. Go on. Mark it on your calendar. Your heard me. See it now!

As an update, it's worth the price of admission to see it in 3D.

Mission Not Impossible

"Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was surprisingly good in my opinion. The MI movies have been hit or miss for me in the past. I liked Mission Impossible 2, but MI3was a miserable failure. This movie more than made up for it with additions such as the awesomely witty Simon Pegg and the devilishly handsome Jeremy Renner.  Throw in some fun plot twists and a lot of action and you have a fun movie worth seeing!

Not One for the Money

I had to see this even though I knew that I was in for a disappointment since I really loved the books. I'll admit that Katherine Heigel pleasantly surprised me. However, Debbie Reynolds as Grandma Mazur was the WORST casting decisions for this movie. Also, the Daniel Sunjata really wasn't in the character of Ranger.  He was sort of close to the person, but just didn't fit the bill.  I think even Dwayne Johnson would have been a better choice than Sunjata.  Jason O'Mara wasn't who I pictured for Joe Morelli, but he did a good job.  It was an okay movie overall, but it could have been better.

If You Don't Like It, Don't Go

"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace 3D" Okay, I'm a nerd. I had to go see this. While the experience of seeing another Star Wars on the big screen was great, the 3D effects were not.  I hope Lucas actually puts out the original trilogy in 3D - that would certainly be worth a try. If you're a Star Wars fan, it's always worth the money... if not, then don't go.  This isn't a new movie, so don't try to make something out of it's that's not there.