Brave (2012)

Genre: Animation, Action, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy

Release Date: June 22, 2012

My Rating:        
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Brave is a bit flawed, and it's definitely not Pixar's best, but it's a good movie overall; it's cute, charming, heartwarming, funny in areas, visually stunning, and undeserving of the negativity it receives.

Over its years, Pixar has brought its magic of high quality animation and good storytelling to the screen.  Some of their films are better than others, but I've at least liked, or even loved, all of their films to date.  I even found Cars 2 to be okay, even though it's my least favorite Pixar film.  This summer I went to theater to see Brave, Pixar's thirteenth major feature film.  I was a bit worried due to a lot of the negative criticism surrounding the film, but I ended up enjoying it.  I also saw it again recently on DVD.  I've already written a review for this film, but I've decided to re-write it now that I've had a couple additional viewings of the film.

Brave is the story of Merida, a young red-haired princess and aspiring archer who is unhappy with her controlled and restricted life.  When she is asked by her mother, Queen Elinor, to choose between three possible suitors (she is at a marriageable age) from three other clans, she is even more upset, and, after a spat with her mother, she eventually flees into the woods, and soon comes upon a cottage (led there by magical blue willo-the-wisps), where she meets a witch.  She begs for a magic spell to change her mother's mind, but it doesn't exactly go according to how Merida wants it...and problems ensue...

I was a bit worried that I would like the movie on DVD less than I did on the big screen, but I ended up enjoying it just as much as I did before, and I still stand by my three-and-a-half (out of four) star rating.  Brave is not without problems, but I can tell that the filmmakers really put in a good amount of effort to try and make the film work for what it's worth.  The film's flaws are mostly forgivable and, while they do hold the film back from living up to its potential, they do not spoil the film.

The story is not original or creative, and it's somewhat cliched and predictable in areas.  But the film does contain a lot of uniqueness, both visually and story-wise.  What I liked most about the film was Merida herself, whom I found to be an interesting, complex, and charismatic character.  She may be a princess, and yes, in a Disney movie, but she's not your average Disney princess.  She's not the kind of princess who falls in love with a prince on a white steed and rides off into the sunset with him.  She is spunky, strong-willed, and independent, and she has bright, wild red hair that matches her personality.  I fell in love with her, and I genuinely cared about her and even related to her a bit, and I stuck with her and got emotionally involved throughout the film.  I even thought she was cute in terms of physical appearance, especially her hair.  And Kelly MacDonald further helps to bring this feisty lass to life with a great voice performance, and with a cute Scottish accent.

I enjoyed the dynamic relationship between her and her mother, and the bonding and character growth they undergo.  Again, this is not a romance film.  Instead, it concerns more personal and more relatable themes (in my opinion); family values and relationships, personal decisions, controlling one's own fate (deciding your own path in life), admitting one's mistakes (which Merida eventually does), and some other valuable life lessons.  I especially liked the mother-daughter aspect.  I myself am a 20 year old guy, but I still related to Merida and her relationship with her mother.  While it may not be a romance film, it's definitely a film about love.

The animation in this film is stunningly beautiful and helps bring the film to life.  The Scottish landscape, the characters, Merida's hair, the wisps, and everything else in the film is all excellently animated.  Sound-wise the film is very good too, both music and other effects.  Composer Patrick Doyle, who was responsible for the score in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, composed a great score for this film.  I think the film could have used some more (and better) humor, but it did have its humorous moments as it is.  It also handles its more emotional areas well, if you ask me.

I feel that there are some things in the film that are meant to be felt rather than explained, and a few of these are meant to be a bit mysterious and open-ended.  The film somewhat succeeds at these, but unfortunately it stumbles a bit here.  I feel that the filmmakers overreached a bit in these areas.  As a result some of these things didn't have the full effect they were supposed to have, and some of them felt a bit out of place.  In general (and not just because of these "open-ended elements"), the movie felt a bit uneven and unpolished in some areas (mostly in the middle portion of the film), and even bit compressed and rushed in a few.

I honestly think the film could have benefited from a longer running length, with which the film could have improved some things, including, but not limited to, fleshing out the characters more, explaining some things better, and polishing up some plot elements.  Also, it would have allowed the mysterious and open-ended feeling be established properly, with an appropriate balance between the things that are explained and those that are meant to be felt.  Another criticism (more minor, though) I have is that the film could have used a bit more thought towards character development; the characters are all effective, and some of them memorable (especially Merida), but except for Merida and Elinor, the characters are a bit underdeveloped.

However, despite these shortcomings, and a few more, I enjoyed the movie; I thought it was handled pretty well, even the weaker areas.  Brave is a bit flawed, and it's definitely not Pixar's best, but I found it be a good movie overall; it's cute, charming, heartwarming, funny in areas, visually stunning, and undeserving of the negativity it receives.




Cast and Credits:
Merida: Kelly Macdonald
Fergus: Billy Connolly
Elinor: Emma Thompson
The Witch: Julie Walters
Lord Dingwall: Robbie Coltrane
Lord/Young MacGuffin: Kevin McKidd

Walt Disney Pictures presents a Pixar film
Running time: 93 min.

Rated PG for some scary action and rude humor

Lincoln (2012)

Genre: Biography, Drama, History

Date Released: November 16, 2012

My Rating:  







Lincoln is compelling and moving, and a film truly worthy of its title; it paints an ecxcellent portrait of America's sixteenth president.

Anybody searching for a biography film about Abraham Lincoln's full life and "major" events will have to look elsewhere.  Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (which I saw in the theater over Thanksgiving weekend) has a brief battle scene at the beginning, and a few scenes near the end taking place around (and during) the time of the assassination, but most of the film (and the meat of the film) is confined to January 1865, and is about Lincoln striving to get the 13th amendment to the Constitution (banning slavery) passed.

If you ask me, limiting the time frame of the film like this was a very smart decision.  Showing all the major events of his life is not necessary; this film, with its shorter time frame, does a great job at it.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that it does a better job of it than a traditional bio-pic would.  The film doesn't really want to show his life, but rather paint a true portrait of the man himself; who was he, really, as a person, president, etc.?  The film is restricted mostly (although not entirely) to offices, courtrooms, Capitol chambers, and places like that, but it still does a very good job at portraying the time period, visually, politically, and in every other way, and with good detail.  In fact, while I generally don't find politics interesting or appealing, I actually found the political aspect of this film somewhat interesting.

Another major factor that makes the film work so well is the acting.  Daniel Day-Lewis put on an excellent performance as Abraham Lincoln; deep, dynamic, powerful, and very convincing.  In fact, his performance is what I liked best about the entire film.  He didn't just portray Lincoln, he practically was Lincoln.  He was pretty convincing in terms of physical appearance, but more importantly, he was almost perfect in terms of his character (in other words, becoming Lincoln).  In short, Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln is great and unforgettable, and completely Oscar-worthy (and he may actually win).  All of the other actors (including Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt) also put their best foot forward and deliver very good and convincing performances.  They slip right into and bring out their characters.

Steven Spielberg has delivered again.  He has directed several films that I like, some of them nostalgic favorites.  He has made many different types of films, all across the genre spectrum; sci-fi, adventure, war, fantasy, history, serious films, fun films, etc etc.  He's not perfect, and not all of his films are good, but, again, a lot of them are, and Lincoln is one such film, and one in which he proves that he can make just about any type of film.  In my opinion it's still not as good as some of his best films, like Schindler's List and War Horse, but it's still great.  And once again, Spielberg has teamed up with score composer John Williams.  Williams's score isn't anywhere near as good or memorable as a lot of his previous works, but it's still pretty good and it fits the film very well.

All in all, the film is not perfect, and it actually only scraped a full four-star rating from me by a little bit.  It could have been better in some aspects, even some of its better aspects, but it's still a great film.  Great performances, great historical portrayal, etc.  In fact, if I had to label film about Lincoln the definitive film about him, it would probably this one.  The film brought me closer to the real-life figure of Lincoln than I have ever been before (literature, pictures, documentaries, etc.).  I wouldn't be surprised if this film ends up being used in school and college history courses.

Lincoln is compelling and moving, and a film truly worthy of its title; it paints an excellent portrait of America's sixteenth president.


Cast and Credits:
Abraham Lincoln: Daniel Day-Lewis
Thaddeus Stevens: Tommy Lee Jones
Mary Todd Lincoln: Sally Field
William Seward: David Strathairn
Robert Lincoln: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
W. N. Bilbo: James Spader

Thor (2011)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Released: May 6, 2011


My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)





A bit bland and formulaic, and could have used a better story, but it has enjoyable characters, humor, and action, and is not bad overall.  It's a bit meh, but it's a bit entertaining, although it's not something I'd want to watch more than once.

Thor is one of the "prequels" to The Avengers - the "prequels" are Iron Man, Iron Man 2,
Thor, Captain America, and The Incredible Hulk.  I still have yet to see The Incredible Hulk, but I have seen the other four films.  I personally think that Thor is the worst of them.  However, despite it's ultimate shortcomings, it does have its positive aspects.

The story is about Thor of Asgard.  This arrogant Thor recklessly travels to another world called Jotunheim with Loki and some other Asgardian warriors and attacks the Frost Giants there, stirring up tension and possible war between Jotunheim and Asgard.  As a result, Odin, Thor's father, strips Thor of his powers, and his mighty hammer, and banishes him to Earth.

On earth, in New Mexico, astrophysicist Jane Foster is researching a phenomenon in the desert (which turns out to be associated with Asgard-related activity, in this case Thor's banishment).  Thor arrives and is discovered by Jane and her partners, and pretty soon he begins to learn the error of his arrogant ways, and he even falls in love with Jane.  Meanwhile, Loki has taken over the Throne of Asgard, and he plans to send the Destroyer to earth to kill Thor, and Thor must retrieve his hammer and his powers to save both earth and Asgard.

The film has both its ups and downs.  I'll start out by talking about the effects.  The visual effects are pretty good.  The mythical words are pretty well designed, and the actions scenes are good.  As for the script, it does have its flaws, but it's an acceptable script.  The story isn't the best, and it's a bit bland and formulaic, but again, it's acceptable.  It even has some creativity in it.  Unfortunately, however, despite its creativity, it's a bit bland and formulaic.  The first act of the film (the first half hour) is, in my opinion, the weakest part of the film, and it felt to me that the movie was relying a bit too much on effects, but it does establish the characters and basis necessary for the story.  It's also where most of the film's creativity is.

Weak as the first act is, I did find some things a bit interesting, and some things were introduced that had a lot of potential to get even better and more interesting and creative.  But unfortunately, at the end of the first act, right after Thor arrives on earth, the movie abandons a lot of its creativity and resorts to a formula.  Some of the things in the first act (which had a lot of creative and interesting potential) are even abandoned and not brought up again in the film.  This, and the film's bland-ness, and a few other flaws, are the main reason why I only gave this film two and a half stars instead of three or higher (it almost got three, but it just missed it).  Also, I felt that the Thor/Jane romance was a bit rushed.

However, despite this, the film does get going a little bit more after Thor's banishment.  This is where the heart and characters begin to shine.  That brings up what I liked most about the film: the characters.  I found them somewhat likable and interesting.  The film even has a surprisingly good sense of humor; there are a lot of good comedy moments.  These things are not strong enough to bring the film up to a higher rating, but they are still somewhat enjoyable.  I especially liked Loki, even though he's the villain, and I was glad to see him and Thor return for The Avengers.

So, overall, I think Thor is a so-so movie.  It is a bit bland and formulaic, and could have used a better story, but it has enjoyable characters, humor, and action, and is not bad overall.  It's a bit meh, but it's a bit entertaining, although it's not something I'd want to watch more than once.




Cast and Credits:
Thor: Chris Hemsworth
Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Jane Foster: Natalie Portman
Odin: Anthony Hopkins
Erik Selvig: Stellan Skarsgard

Paramount Pictures presents
a film directed by Kenneth Branagh

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence

Rear Window (1954)

Genre: Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 1, 1954

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)




Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.



As of right now, I have only seen three of Alfred Hitchcock's films: Psycho, Vertigo, and now Rear Window.  I have to say, I already like the way Hitchcok creates suspense, and also his methods of storytelling and tampering with narrative elements.  A number of people, including film critic James Berardinelli, consider Rear Window to be Hitchcock's best film.  As of right now, I personally agree; I've only seen three of his films, but Rear Window is my favorite of the three.

Rear Window is appropriately named.  The protagonist, L. B. Jefferies (James Stewart), is a professional photographer with a broken leg, and is therefore confined to his apartment in New York.  He spends the time watching his neighbors from his rear window (see, I told you the film was appropriately named).  Soon, however, he begins to suspect that one of his neighbors might have murdered his wife, and he becomes obsessed with this mystery, and eventually he even gets his girlfriend to help him investigate.

What I loved most about the film was the way the story is told.  Just like Vertigo and Psycho, Rear Window has a strong and unmatched uniqueness and, even though elements of the film have almost certainly been used in films between then and now.  What I really found interesting is the "restriction" of the film; except for a brief spot near the end, the film is entirely restricted to inside Jefferies's apartment and his view from his rear window.  The events of the story that happen outside of the apartment are either only mentioned in the dialogue or seen from the window.

However, despite this restriction to voyeurism, it's actually somewhat interesting watching going-ons outside in the courtyard and through the windows of other people's apartments, even though we are watching these things from a distance instead of having the scenes be set in those actual areas.  Even in real life, a lot can often be learned even just by watching, and it can be quite interesting.  Also, the suspense in the film handled very well.  And I should also point out that, like in Psycho and Vertigo, the the story is not entirely predictable; Hitchcock cleverly throws in some things that flout the audience's expectations.

In addition to all of this, the actors, especially James Stewart, put on good performances.  They are likable and believeable.  Jefferies is a semi-interesting character, and his relationship with his girlfriend, Lisa, is handled pretty well.  The other performances are good too.  Overall, the performances in this movie are another factor that make the film great, and they are especially useful given the "containment" of the film's story.

Overall, I think Rear Window is a great movie, with interesting storytelling, good characters, good acting, and strong suspense, and overall good moral messages, among other things.  I would definitely recommend it to anybody interested in film.






Cast and Credits:
L. B. Jefferies: James Stewart
Lisa Fremont: Grace Kelly
Det. Lt. Doyle: Wendell Corey
Lars Thorwald: Raymond Burr
Stella: Thelma Ritter

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Rated PG

King Kong (2005)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Romance

Released: December 14, 2005

 

My Rating: 
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.

A number of people complain that James Cameron's Avatar was a huge show-off of CGI with flaws, a weak, thin story, and very little substance.  I disagree with this, but I do think that this statement would be somewhat accurate in describing Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, which I saw on Sunday (October 7, just four days ago).  I wouldn't describe this film using that statement word-for-word, but the "massive amount of CGI and lots of flaws" part is pretty accurate for this film, if you ask me.

I've seen a clip of original 1933 King Kong film, but I've never seen the entire film, so I won't be able to compare and contrast the films.  So I will just talk about this film.  The story is set in 1933.  Film director Carl Denham (Jack Black) wants to travel to a mysterious island called Skull Island to finish his film.  He finds a lead lady, Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts).  After a while, during which Ann falls in love with Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), they reach the island, but soon the natives there capture Ann and give her up to Kong, a giant gorilla.  Kong takes Ann and retreats into the jungle, and Carl, Jack, and the crew go in after her, along the way encountering many creatures and other dangers.

The visual effects in this film are very good and convincing.  Everything is designed with great detail, especially Kong.  James Newton Howard composed a good score for the film.  And I liked Kong himself.  He's not just a one-dimensional figure; he actually has some personality and depth, and I did feel the emotional impact of his death at the end of the film.  And I liked the scenes involving Ann and Kong, and I liked the bond that developed between them (although it should have been stronger).

Now for the criticisms...where you you like me to begin?    In my opinion, the film is way too long.  It also has some serious pacing and structure issues.  The exposition is too long; over an hour passes before Kong appears.  I was hoping for the movie to get better after Kong's initial appearance.  This is where Ann is taken by Kong, and Carl, Jack, and the crew follow them deeper into the island.  But, unfortunately, (at least for me) it actually got worse after Kong's appearance.  The film basically discards most of its substance, and many other things established in the hour-long first act (and the natives on the island who give Ann to Kong), and goes into over-the-top and overly-long CGI sequences.  I felt to me almost as if the film couldn't make up its mind as to what is important and what is pointless.  The storyline is somewhat cluttered, and, again, not properly paced.  Things are not paid off properly, etc., and don't have the bones to support them.

The film had so much potential, and, in my opinion it ended up blowing most of it.  Again, I haven't seen the original 1933 film, but even so, this film (2005) could have been great.  Like I said before, the effects are interesting, and a lot of the design is good, but the film even had trouble here.  The creatures that the characters encounter on the island seemed more as if they were designed mainly to look cool or scary rather than anything else.  Also, the "world" (Skull Island) doesn't really work with the narrative like it should.  It, and the CGI, felt more like it was there to just look cool and distract the viewer from the flaws, which of course does not work on me.  Also, good as the effects are, some of the creatures and sequences were pretty stupid; I almost rolled my eyes in a few areas.

I felt that Skull Island was begging for a firm establishment in the film, even as a character in itself.  I felt that it was begging to have the film go somewhat into its history, biology, etc, and that the film should have maybe gone into Kong's background, and stuff like that (and more about the natives).  Unfortunately, the film does not do this.  Maybe if it did, it would somewhat justify the three-hour running time.  But it doesn't, and it ends up being too thin and too long.  Also, the Kong/Ann and Kong's death scenes, effective as they are, could have been much better.

Overall, the film isn't completely terrible, and it is watchable, but I was pretty disappointed, especially since this is from the director of Lord of the Rings.  It has some redeeming values, but it has to many flaws, in my opinion.  It felt almost like a great movie trapped in a lame one.

Note: Avatar, like King Kong, has some script flaws and could have used more depth, but in my opinion it's actually an okay movie.  It's solid, coherent, and has a much better world.  Also, in my opinion, the world Pandora actually felt alive to me, and I felt that it was actually a character in the film (not to mention carefully crafted with actual thoughts towards science, biology, ecosystems, etc., rather than just things to look cool).  Also, in my opinion, Avatar has more meaning (it's not meaningless at all), more emotion, more relatability, much stronger romance, and a much more coherent story.

Cast and Credits:

Ann Darrow: Naomi Watts

Carl Denham: Jack Black

Jack Driscoll: Adrian Brody

Universal Pictures presents

A film directed by Peter Jackson

Running time: 187 min.

Rated PG-13 for frightening adventure violence and some disturbing images

Tangled (2012)

Genre: Animation, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy, Musical, Romance

Release Date: November 24, 2010

  My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


One of the best animated Disney features in years.

I loved Disney when I was a kid.  After the blue and white Disney logo (which has been changed since then), I would sit back and enjoy adventure, fantasy, castles, romance, sword fights, songs, magic spells, talking animals, and...well, you get the idea!  I used to watch and re-watch several of their animated films - just to name a few: The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Pinnochio, and many others.  I have to admit, even now that I'm no longer a Disney lover, I still consider many of their old animated films (including the ones I've listed above) to be good; they certainly know how to deliver visual pleasure and vivid storytelling.  In fact, I've given many of these films either three, three-and-a-half, or four star ratings.  Nowadays, the only animated Disney films I've really been interested in have been Pixar films, and I like a few of Disney's live action films (like National Treasure and The Sorcerer's Apprentice) as guilty pleasures.  But I have to admit, I enjoyed Tangled.

At the beginning of the film, a queen is gravely ill, but is cured by the powers of a magic flower.  Soon afterward, she bears a baby girl, Rapunzel, who actually inherits the magic flower's powers.  However, Rapunzel is kidnapped in the middle of the night by Mother Gothel, who wants to stay young via the magic healing powers within Rapunzel's hair, so she raises Rapunzel in a tower.  Now a teenager, Rapunzel's hair is extremely long, and she has spent her entire life in the tower, and is curious about the outside world.  One day, a thief named Flynn Rider, who is on the run, scales the tower and hides inside, and is taken captive by Rapunzel.  She hides the tiara he has recently stolen and agrees to give it back only if he takes her to the place where the floating lights appear on her birthday each year.  On this journey, she truly discovers the outside world, and, eventually, who she really is.

The story is a bit formulaic and predictable, but that's not a problem at all.  Besides, this is true for many of Disney's animated films.  But it's a good story, and Disney takes it and applies unique and memorable elements and charm to it, and some songs too.  Disney even draws ideas and elements from some of its previous films.  I think it's safe to say that Tangled is a mix of past and present in terms of Disney.  It contains a lot of old Disney-type elements, formats, and methods of storytelling among other things, but with the application of modern CGI animation, and some other modern elements.

I was expecting this film to be geared more towards kids, but it's actually a good film for anyone.  It is very much a family movie.  Sure, there are some kid-oriented elements, and some slapstick humor that the kids would enjoy, but there are also things that adults would appreciate; even the more childish elements I just mentioned are not so extreme, and are perfectly enjoyable for adults.  The film has a lot of good humor, but it also has a good sense of character, story, depth, and emotion.  The characters are not flat, but are actually very good, and so are the relationships between them.  The characters are truly lovable, especially Flynn and Rapunzel (and of these two, especially the latter), and evoke genuine emotion.  Their attitudes and personalities contain both older and modern elements.  There are even a couple of hilarious sidekicks - a chameleon named Pascal and a horse named Maximus (my favorite of which was the latter).

CGI technology and effects have progressed even further since this film came out, but still, the animation in this film is beautiful.  Everything is well designed, and with great detail and scope - the characters, the scenery, Rapunzel's hair...everything.  And this animation is not just eye candy - it's used wisely, and it actually works well with the script and helps with the emotion and narrative, like it's supposed to.  The film offers some very memorable things (characters, scenes, images, and much more) including a truly unforgettable, visually beautiful, and emotionally powerful scene involving floating lanterns.

The voice actors all put on good performances, especially Mandy Moore as Rapunzel.  They all really bring their characters to life.  The music in this film is good, both the songs and the standard underscore.  The songs could have been better, but they are pretty good and perfectly enjoyable as they are, especially "When Will My Life Begin?" (sung by Rapunzel about five minutes into the film) and "I See the Light" (sung by Rapunzel and Flynn during the lantern scene I mentioned in the last paragraph).  I really have to give the filmmakers a major thumbs up for Rapunzel herself.  She is very well designed (especially her hair), and is absolutely beautiful.  And not only that, she is hot.  Her personality and liveliness are very attractive as well, and she really captures the heart.  She and Flynn are great together, and their romantic relationship is handled very well - it's not corny, it's actually charming and emotional (and, yes, with bits of humor here and there).

In my opinion, the film is good as it is, but it still could have been better.  The one criticism I do have is that there are some things about the story and characters, especially in the third act, that I think could have been handled better and given more depth, and should have involved more character complexity.  However, despite this, the film works, and it does have a pretty good sense of depth, character, humor, and emotion as it is.  It combines and balances all of its elements pretty well.  You laugh when you're supposed to, cry when you're supposed to, etc.  And the film has a pretty good moral message: go out and live your dream.  Don't just sit at home in your figurative tower or at your computer all the time; go out, fulfill your dream, live your life.  That's an important message for everyone.

Overall, Tangled isn't great, but it's good, and, in my opinion, one of the best animated Disney features in years.  It has good characters and a good story, and it's funny, charming, clever, witty, and full of heart and soul.  Disney still knows how to deliver a film ripe with visual and storytelling magic.




Cast and Credits:
Rapunzel: Mandy Moore
Flynn/Eugene: Zachary Levi
Mother Gothel: Donna Murphy

A Walt Disney Pictures presentation
Directed by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard
Running time: 100 min.

Rated PG for brief mild violence

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Crime, Thriller

Release Date: July 20, 2012

My Rating:  




The Dark Knight Rises is a roller coaster of thrills, morals, darkness, plot twists, top-notch action scenes, and much more; it's pure high-order entertainment.  Nolan ends his trilogy on a great, and dark, note.  The Dark Knight has risen well.

The thing about making a finale, or any sequel, in a franchise is that it's hard to do so.  There are expectations and hype to live up to, and a weak installment can ruin a franchise (even without hype).  Sometimes, however, such films are a success.  Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is the finale to his Batman trilogy, and I just saw it in the theater today.  It doesn't live up to the excellence of The Dark Knight, but it really is an excellent movie.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after the end of The Dark Knight.  Bruce Wayne is retired from being Batman, and he mainly stays shut up in his new mansion.  His reputation as Batman is tarnished because he took the rap for Harvey Dent's crimes in the previous film.  However, he is soon pulled back into action when a new villain, Bane, starts wreaking havoc on Gotham (although, of course, this havoc is not his primary objective).

Nolan's previous two Batman films were more dark, deep, emotional, and moral, instead of lighthearted and bright.  They were even a bit intellectually involving.  So what should you expect from this movie?  More of those same elements!  He doesn't completely live up to hype and expectations, and this film is probably the weakest of the trilogy (but only slightly; it's just a hair behind Batman Begins), but Nolan does not disappoint.  The film starts out a bit slowly and a bit weak, and the first act is definitely the weakest part of the film (but not bad, though), but it eventually really gets going and really unfolds, and the sky is the limit for Nolan.  The film is by no means perfect.  It does have a few flaws.  There are a few flawed dialogue lines here and there.  Batman doesn't have as much screen time as he should have.  Also, the plot stumbles a bit here and there, and some things should have been organized and paid off better.  But it's pretty darn good as it is.

The effects, visual and sound, are excellent.  The visual and special effects are as great as ever, from the scenery and portrayal of Gotham, to the costumes, action effects, and everything else.  Hans Zimmer composed the score for the previous two films, and he composed it for this film too, and once again, he did a good job.  The actors in this film put on good performances.  In this film, we have some familiar faces, including Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Mr. Fox (Morgan Freeman).  And of course we have some new characters, including Bane.  There are also a couple of women with whom Bruce has shallow love affairs, and one of whom is Catwoman.  And speaking of new things, Batman now has a new means of transportation: one that flies!  And of course the story is good, and the ending is especially powerful (but I won't give it away).  The story even has plot twists and whatnot, and it's not completely predictable or formulematic, which is good, of course.  This movie, again, is, by a tad, the weakest in the trilogy, but it's great.

The Dark Knight Rises is a roller coaster of thrills, morals, darkness, plot twists, top-notch action scenes, and much more; it's pure high-order entertainment.  Nolan ends his trilogy on a great, and dark, note.  The Dark Knight has risen well.




Cast and Credits:
Bruce Wayne / Batman: Christian Bale
Commissioner Gordon: Gary Oldman
Bane: Tom Hardy
Selina / Catwoman: Anne Hathaway
Miranda: Marion Cotillard
Lucius Fox: Morgan Freeman
Alfred: Michael Caine

Warner Brothers Pictures presents
A film directed by Christopher Nolan
Running time: 164 min.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Genre: Crime, Drama 

Released: October 14, 1994

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


The Shawshank Redemption is moving and compelling, and it truly touches the heart and soul.


The Shawshank Redemption is currently number one on the IMDb Top 250 list.  I don't particularly agree with that, but it is a truly great movie nonetheless.  It is moving and compelling, and it touches the heart and soul.

The story is set in the 1940s, and it involves Andy Dufrense (Tim Robbins), a young man who is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover and is sentenced to life in the Shawshank Prison.  As one would expect, he is very unhappy at first, but then he leans that there's something deeper that nobody can take away from you: hope.  As the story unfolds, over the years, Andy eventually becomes very influential within the prison and gains the respect of other inmates, especially "Red" (Morgan Freeman), with whom he develops a special friendship.

The story isn't original or creative, and it's relatively simple, and a bit predictable, but it's compelling, moving, and memorable, and there's a bit more to it which I won't go into.  The movie puts the viewer right into the footsteps, experiences, and emotions of the characters.  Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman put on great performances.  They really bring out their characters and offer true depth and emotion.  One of the major moral messages of the movie is that a person may be imprisoned, even for life, but the spirit can never truly be imprisoned.  The movie conveys this moral message very strongly, and it truly touches the heart and soul.

I am very glad I watched this movie.  It is a truly emotional experience.




Cast and Credits:
Andy Dufrense: Tim Robbins
Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding: Morgan Freeman
Warden Norton: Bob Gunton
Heywood: William Sadler
Captain Hadley: Clancy Brown

Castle Rock Entertainment presents
A film directed by Frank Darabont

Rated R for language and prison violence

Brave (2012)

Genre: Animation, Action, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy

Release Date: June 22, 2012

My Rating:  
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)


Brave is not one of Pixar's best films, but it's fairly good; it's charming, good-hearted, a bit witty, visually stunning, and has a likable heroine protagonist.

Pixar has returned to the big screen with Brave, which I saw in the theater today, and I liked it.  It was hot today, so I was glad to spend an hour and a half in an air-conditioned theater with a soda and watching an enjoyable movie.

Brave is the story of Merida, a young red-haired princess and aspiring archer who is unhappy with her life as a princess.  She doesn't like living the controlled and restricted life that she's living.  When she is asked by her mother to choose between three possible husbands (she is at a marriageable age), she is even more upset.  She eventually flees into the woods, and soon comes upon a cottage (led there by magical blue wisps), where she meets a witch.  She begs for a magic spell to change her mother's mind, but it doesn't exactly go according to how Merida wants it...  This eventually leads to unintended chaos that threatens not only Merida's mother, but also the kingdom.

In my opinion, Brave is definitely not one of Pixar's best films.  But it's far from Pixar's worst.  It's not as good as I hoped it would be, but it's actually fairly good.  The story isn't creative or anything, but it's enjoyable and charming, and it has some good moral messages.  It's a medieval-type story, with a bit of fantasy (magic), but it has some modern elements in it.  The humor isn't as good as it usually is in Pixar films, but its effective and witty at times.  The film handles its emotional aspects pretty well also.  Just like Pixar's other films, Brave is very much a family movie, and it's good-hearted.  The actors all put on effective voice performances.  The music score is pretty good. The animation in the film is some of the best animation I've ever seen.  It's visually stunning.  And it's not just eye candy, it actually helps with the emotional and narrative aspects of the film, like it's supposed to.  Overall, the movie isn't original or creative, but it has a pretty good uniqueness about it.

What I liked most about the movie was Merida herself.  She's stubborn, spunky, and strong-willed, and quite likable in personality.  She's also a bit physically attractive.  She is a good CGI character, especially her hair.  Also, she's a bit different from the typical Disney princess.  She longs for something else in her life, but it has nothing to do with a romantic relationship with a man.  In fact, she doesn't even necessarily want to get married, and she doesn't seem to mind living without a husband.  But it's not like she doesn't have any emotional or any other kind of depth as a person, because she does.  She's actually a somewhat charming character, and she's a good heroine.  And she and her mother eventually undergo some interesting yet charming mother-daughter bonding.

Overall, the movie could've been better, but I enjoyed it, and it was especially enjoyable on the big screen.  Brave is not one of Pixar's best films, but it's fairly good; it's charming, good-hearted, a bit witty, visually stunning, and has a likable heroine protagonist.  It's a good film to be seen with the family.





Cast and Credits:
Merida: Kelly Macdonald
Fergus: Billy Connolly
Elinor: Emma Thompson
The Witch: Julie Walters
Lord Dingwall: Robbie Coltrane

Walt Disney Pictures presents a Pixar film
Running time: 100 min.

Rated PG for some scary action and rude humor