Wednesday, July 9, 2014

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)





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


My Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ½   (out of   ★ ★ ★ ★)
(Click here for more info on my rating scale)




                 Hiccup and Toothless soar in this inferior yet still worthy sequel to its classic predecessor.



I missed the theatrical release of the first How to Train Your Dragon film in 2010, but I eventually saw it on DVD, and I loved it.  It has since become one of my favorite animated films, and one of my all-time favorite films in general, and, in my opinion, it is a completely flawless film.  So, naturally, I was a bit apprehensive when I found out that they were going to make a sequel.  Not so surprisingly, I didn’t think How to Train Your Dragon 2 was as good as its predecessor, but it is still a good movie.

The film is set five years after the events of the first film.  Instead of killing dragons, the Vikings of Berk now welcome dragons into their village.  The chief, Stoick the Vast, plans to retire soon and have his son, Hiccup (now twenty years old), take his place as chief, and even Hiccup’s girlfriend, Astrid, thinks he has great potential for the job­.  Hiccup, however, prefers flying around with his dragon Toothless and mapping new lands, and is rather averse to his father’s wishes.  One day while out exploring, Hiccup comes across a group of dragon catchers, who work for an evil warlord, Drago, who wants to assemble a dragon army.  Hiccup, against his fathers orders, sets off to try and peacefully reason with Drago, but is waylaid by the mysterious Dragon Rider, Valka (voiced by Cate Blanchett), who turns out to be Hiccup’s thought-to-be-long-dead mother.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 is, for the most part, an example of a sequel done right.  It further develops and expands upon its universe and underlying themes, and it actually takes the story in a new direction rather than essentially repeating that of the first film.  Also, while it’s still fun, endearing, and family-friendly like the first film, it’s also darker and more mature, and a bit more complex.  It doesn’t shy away from some dark themes, such as war and death, and it doesn’t have that feeling that everything is inevitably going turn out alright in the end.  There are even few good twists in the film’s third act (which I found to be the most emotionally powerful part of the film).

The first HTTYD film was a simple and straightforward but extremely touching story about friendship, loyalty, acceptance, and family.  Its emotional core consisted of the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless.  This relationship is still crucial to the story in HTTYD 2, but it takes a back seat until the film’s third act.  The primary core of this film consists of a couple different elements.  One of them is the reuniting of Hiccup’s family.  The other, more important element is the coming of age element.  Yes, more than anything else, HTTYD 2 is a coming of age film for Hiccup.

The animation in this film, as expected, is spectacular.  The characters, dragons, and scenery are excellently designed and visually pleasing, and the flying and aerial battle scenes are very good as well.  John Powell, who composed the fantastic soundtrack for the first film, has returned and composed it for this film as well, and he still did a very good job.  The soundtrack even contains a very good song that is worth mentioning: ‘Where No One Goes’.  Also, the voice acting is very well done, especially Jay Baruchel as Hiccup.

Unfortunately, while I thought the first film was flawless, I cannot say the same about this film.  This film has some pacing and plotting issues, a few contrived moments, a one-dimensional villain, and some underdeveloped supporting characters (the main characters are well developed, though, especially Hiccup).  Additionally, the film is a bit weaker than the first film in terms of comedy, and a few of the comedic moments fall flat.  Nonetheless, the film does have several humorous moments that do work.

Despite its slightly messy pacing and plotting, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is, in my opinion, a good sequel, and a good film for anybody of any age, and I’m glad I got to see it in the theater (twice – and I actually liked it a little better the second time).  It is emotional, heartfelt, and humorous in areas, with some strong messages about family, friendship, forgiveness, loyalty, coming of age, and living to one’s potential.  Kids will enjoy it as long as they can handle some of the darker and more mature content.  There is also plenty of content in the film for adults to enjoy.  HTTYD 2 is one of my favorite films of the year so far, and it may very well end up being my favorite animated film of 2014 – if nothing else, I hope it receives a nomination for Best Animated Feature.

Monday, May 5, 2014

Frozen (2013)









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

My Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ½   (out of   ★ ★ ★ ★)
    (Click here for more info on my rating scale)




Frozen opens up with rhythmic chanting through the Disney and WDAS logos and the opening title.  This is immediately followed by a scene involving a group of ice harvesters slicing ice from a frozen lake and singing about ice, fear, and frozen hearts, ending their song with the ominous line, “beware the frozen heart…” This opening sets the right tone and foreshadows some of the film’s underlying themes.  This opening also has something of an ambitious feel to it, as if this film were daring to try and be on the same level as Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and some of Disney’s other best films.  In my opinion, Frozen is not as good as these films, and it is not a masterpiece by any means, and frankly I think it’s overrated.  But I still found it to be a good movie, and with a gripping emotional core (in this case, a sisterly relationship).


Frozen is the story of sisters Anna and Elsa, the princesses of Arendelle.  Elsa has magical powers to create ice and snow.  These two sisters were very close when they were little, until an incident in which Elsa almost kills her younger sister with her powers.  Their parents, the King and Queen, take Anna to a group of trolls who save Anna and erase her memories of Elsa’s powers.  After this, the parents separate the sisters, who grow apart over the years, and Anna cannot understand why Elsa is shutting her out.  At one point in the sisters’ teen years, their parents die at sea, and three years after this, Elsa reaches the age at which she can become Queen.


On coronation day, Anna meets Hans, a prince of another kingdom.  She falls in love with him and wants to get engaged – that same day.  Elsa doesn’t approve of this, an argument ensues, and Elsa inadvertently releases her powers.  She then flees, unintentionally leaving the kingdom in a magically induced winter, and isolates herself in an ice palace she constructs with her powers.  Anna sets off to pursue Elsa, along the way acquiring the help of an ice harvester, Kristoff, and his trusty reindeer, the almost-but-not-quite talking Sven (Kristoff does the “talking” for him).  Along the way, they also meet up with the slightly irritating but overall reasonably amusing Olaf, a walking, talking snowman.


Now, despite the immense hype surrounding this film, some not-so-positive reviewers have claimed that the film is shallow, simplistic, messy, and empty.  In my opinion, however, not only is it not, but it’s also pretty heavy with subtleties, symbolism, and subtext; and I found it to be relatable and thought provoking to a considerable degree.  I will admit that the storyline itself (disregarding its emotional layers) is fairly simple and predictable, and not particularly spectacular.  But overall, I found the story to be decent and effective, with some valuable morals including, but not limited to, the true meaning of love, overcoming one’s fears, and accepting people for who they are.


The primary factor that makes the story work is the characters.  Elsa is reclusive and emotionally distant from other people, including Anna.  And has spent thirteen years as such, living in fear of herself and her powers, and of how her powers could potentially hurt others, especially her sister.  But she has a good heart under her cold exterior, and is very likable and relatable.  Her endearing strawberry-blonde sister, Anna, the film’s protagonist, is a lovely contrast to her in many ways, and brings a good balance to the movie.  She is bubbly and optimistic, if a bit klutzy and reckless, and eager to go out into the world and meet people.  Kristoff is right in calling her “feisty pants.” Unfortunately, she is pretty naive and gullible, which in some ways is probably as damaging as Elsa’s cold, introverted qualities.  The relationship between these two sisters is what constitutes the film’s emotional core.


Even Kristoff is worth a mention.  He is a bit gruff and rough around the edges on the exterior, but warm and caring on the inside, and he has his own backstory involving isolation.  And I was able to relate to all three of these characters to at least some degree.  So, all in all, the characters do have some stereotypical qualities,  and admittedly their development could have been much better, but they are still decently developed, with solid, well-rounded, well-nuanced personalities, genuine emotional depth, and excellent physical appearances; not to mention the superlative voice performances by the cast.  The animators even paid excellent attention to all of their mannerisms, tics, facial expression, and other details.


Another major strength of the film is the music.  Christophe Beck did a good job composing the score; and Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez did a good job writing the songs, my favorites of which are “For the First Time in Forever,” “Let It Go,” “Do You Want to Build a Snowman,” and “Frozen Heart.”  The songs are admittedly not excellent, but they are pretty good (a few of them are even a bit catchy), and they help develop the characters and move the story along pretty well (except for Olaf’s “In Summer,” which, while enjoyable, is little more than comic relief).  I do think there is a little too much singing in the film’s first act, but this was hardly a problem for me, especially on subsequent viewings.  FTFTIF actually had a lot of that old Disney feel, and that particular sequence in the film made me feel like I was watching a scene from a Disney Renaissance film, despite the newer CG animation.  That famous Oscar-winning “Let It Go” number is also worth a mention – it beats to the heart of some of the film’s main themes, and the scene it’s featured in is one of the best and most emotional scenes in the film.


Some modern filmmakers, especially Michael Bay, could really learn a thing or two from movies like Frozen.  I cannot deny that the animation in Frozen is very good, and the film would not have worked without it.  Fortunately, however, directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee actually care about other things as well: character development, relationships, heart, storytelling, and so forth.  The film actually has a warm, genuine heart of its own under all of that digital snow and ice.  Also, the animation in this film is used properly: instead of just serving as a flashy distraction (a la Michael Bay), it is actually used to service the script (not the other way around).


Now, again, I honestly think the film is good, and, again, I disagree with some of the criticisms it receives, but there is still a lot of room for improvement, even in its better aspects.  In addition to myriad missed opportunities, this film, unfortunately, has its flaws.  I have already mentioned the slightly excessive singing in the first act.  In addition, there are a few pacing issues.  I also found the film’s second act to be a bit insipid and a little too heavy in comedy.  Sure, it was funny, but it occasionally upset the balance between the comedy and drama, and thereby prevented the second act from having the same emotional punch that the first and third acts have.  Also, I felt that the story was slightly rushed.  In fact, the film actually contains enough material for two or three movies, or even a TV miniseries.  The film, despite its pacing issues, is solid and coherent as it is, but I still think a slightly longer running length would have done it a lot of good.


Another thing I want to mention about this film is the villain.  Yes, there is a bad guy, but he is something along the lines of Gaston from Beauty and the Beast – in other words, he is secondary to the primary conflict.  Unfortunately, this film’s villain, while effective, is a rather weak villain – contrived and paper-thin.  And his incorporation into the storyline could really have used some more work, especially his contrived (and slightly amateurish) revelation late in the film.  Film critic James Berardinelli was right in calling him a “second-rate Gaston.”  So, in short, I feel that the film suffers a bit from pacing issues, a weak villain, and a slightly overly-comedic second act.


In our current Disney Revival, up to this point, we have had The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph, and now Frozen.  And personally I think Frozen is the best of the five, beating out Tangled by a whisker.  Also, Disney has successfully moved into the 21st century.  They don’t have the full talent, magic, and charisma that they used to have, but, for the most part, they have succeeded in combining their older, “classical” elements (tone, storytelling techniques, character attitudes, and so forth) with modern ones.  I felt this way about Tangled as well, and now Frozen has made it official for me.


Frozen has won two Oscars, and its smashing success at the box office has made it the highest grossing animated film to date.  At the same time, it’s also receiving the harsh backlash that films this successful tend to receive.  I personally think Frozen is overrated, and not without its flaws, but I still think it’s good – charming, heartfelt, humorous, emotional, and overall entertaining.  Disney may not have the full charm and charisma they used to have, but at least they still know how to make a good movie.  Frozen is one of my favorite films of 2013, and I award it an honest rating of three and a half (out of four) stars.  Up until now, I have seen it six times (four times in the theater, and twice at home on DVD), and all six times it thawed my heart.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

12 Years a Slave (2013)






Genre: Biography, Drama, History



My Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ½   (out of ★ ★ ★ ★)
    (Click here for more info on my rating scale)



Alright, imagine if you are living an ordinary day; and then the next suddenly you find your life torn away from you, and you are thrown into a different life, full of misery, despair, oppression, and brutality, possibly for many years.  Well, this is exactly what happened to Solomon Northup, a free black man who, in 1841, was kidnapped, beaten, and sold into slavery.  And he remained in slavery for twelve years, until he has rescued in 1853 from a plantation he was working on in Louisiana.  In fact, Northup only one of the numerous people to whom this actually happened, but he was one of the only ones who regained their freedom.

Shortly after regaining his freedom, he published his story in a book titled 12 Years a Slave, which I read prior to seeing the film, and which director Steve McQueen has now adapted into said film, with the same title.  Many reviewers have already summarized essentially how I personally feel about this film, so I apologize if this review feels redundant to you readers.  Rather than just trying to grab money and capitalize on the market, McQueen brings to the screen an honest, accurate portrayal of the harsh conditions and life of slavery.  And it old through the eyes of a man who was not born and raised as a slave, but a free end educated man who ended up having experience in both the slave and free worlds.  As for the cruelty and brutality, the film doesn't tone any of it down.  In fact, some scenes were difficult to watch, they were so disturbing.  This film actually allowed me, to a considerable extent, to experience a bit of antebellum Southern United States slavery as it actually was.  IT could also be argued that the film offers a strong view of how cruel and evil humans can be, and have been at times in the past.

The performances in this film are excellent.  The script doesn't give Northup much "development," but Chiwetel Ejiofor gives his character depth and humanity through his powerful, superlative performance.  He reached out grabbed by emotions strongly, pulling me into his experiences, from a free man, to his abduction, and through his experience as a slave, during which he kept the fact of his freedom mostly silent but nevertheless remained determined to someday get it back.  I especially liked the way he conveyed so much emotion though facial expressions, and especially through his eyes.  I predict an Oscar nomination for Ejiofor.

All of the other performances were highly commendable as well.  Not all of the white people portrayed in the film, however, are cruel.  A counter example is William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch).  Cumberbatch's character in the film is a 180 turn around from his performance as the evil and menacing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness.  His character, Ford, while blinded by the social and cultural mores of the antebellum South, treats Northup with unexpected kindness (and I look forward to future performances by Cumberbatch).  Another such counterexample to the common white cruelty of the time is Bass (Brad Pitt), who eventually helps Northup to escape.  As for the not-so-kind people, there are two who reflect the general beliefs and unpleasantness of many southern whites.  They are Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a plantation owner and one of Northup's owners, and John Tibeats (Paul Dano), a worker for Ford.  And yes, Fassbender and Dano's performed well.

While scenery is certainly not the primary draw of the film, I want to give a thumbs up for the film's cinematograpy and visual aspects, and Hans Zimmer's music score, which helped enhance the experience.  As for the screenplay, John Ridley did a good job adapting the book into a screenplay.  He did make a few minor tweaks and condensed the story a bit - in fact, there are one or two particular scenes that I think should have been included in the film, and I think that they would have made the film even better - but other than that the film is true to the book and the events.

If I were to criticize anything about the film, it would be that I really think that the feeling of twelve years passing, while effective, should have been stronger.  In fact, while I liked the film and the way everything was handled in it, I felt that everything could still have been stronger - more intense, more vivid, more horrifying, more suspenseful, more gut-wrenching, more emotionally powerful, etc.  But again, all of these aspects, and more, were still pretty strong in the film.

So, overall, 12 Years a Slave wasn't great like I wanted it to be, but it was good, and one of the best films of 2013; and it is an experience that I will not be forgetting anytime soon.  Solomon Northup himself would have been proud of this film.



Cast and Credits:
Solomon Northup: Chiwetel Ejiofor
Edwin Epps: Michael Fassbender
William Ford: Benedict Cumberbatch
Patsey: Lupita Nyong'o
Tibeats: Paul Dano
Bass: Brad Pitt
Burch: Christopher Berry

Directed by Steve McQueen
Based on the novel by Solomon Northup himself
Screenplay by John Ridley
Music by Hans Zimmer
Running time: 134 min.

Rated R for violence and cruelty, some nudity, and brief sexuality

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)



Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Release Date: May 16, 2013



My Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ½   (out of ★ ★ ★ ★)
      (Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Currently my third favorite Star Trek film.



I wouldn’t call myself a true Star Trek fan, but over the past few years I have become a bit fond of the franchise.  I have seen most of the movies, and I have seen a number of episodes from the original series, but nothing more.  But I have enjoyed most of the films and episodes that I have seen so far.  Now, my viewing experience of Star Trek Into Darkness marks a pretty big point in my experience with Star Trek: it is the first Star Trek film that I have seen in the theater.  And I don’t regret it; I liked it.

The 2009 film brought about an “alternate” timeline/reality to the Star Trek franchise, providing some good and even refreshing opportunities.  Star Trek Into Darkness picks up sometime after the previous film left off.  While saving a planet from a volcanic eruption, Kirk (still a bit cocky and arrogant, like before) violates the federation’s “Prime Directive.”  As a result, the Federation gives the Enterprise back to Admiral Pike, and Kirk is demoted to First Officer.  However, an old Starfleet Commander declares war on the Federation, setting off a bomb in London and then attacking the Starfleet Headquarters in San Francisco, during which Pike is killed.  The Enterprise is given back to Kirk, along with orders to track down Harrison and bring him to justice.

I’m going to keep my review simple.  I found this movie overall to be better than the 2009 film in just about every way.  Not only are the action and effects better, but I found the story to be better and more emotionally compelling (and with a few twists), and the emotional journey of the characters and their relationships is good, and stronger and deeper than in the last film.  Oh, and yes, there are some humorous moments as well.

This film doesn’t feel quite like the older Star Trek films, but it also pays homage to them, especially one in particular (such as a revelation later on where we learn Harrison’s true identity…).  There’s even one particular sequence late in the film which is very similar to that of that particular aforementioned Star Trek film that this film pays homage to (you’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it – if, of course, you have seen that particular film).  This sequence (with a role-reversal though) is one of my favorite scenes of the film, and it pays homage to that other film quite well.

The cast memebers all do a good job as well, and put on good performances.  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, and the rest of the cast all bring out their characters well; and they pay homage to their respective characters in earlier movies as well.

The flawed content that the film has is mostly in the middle portion of the film; it’s not bad or anything, but it’s definitely a slight dip in quality from the first and third acts of the film.  It has a few minor pacing issues here, and it goes a little overboard on the action and effects, and it falls just short of the emotional level it should be at (but it still gets close).  That being said, I very much liked the first and last half hours (approximately) of the film.

Overall, I liked this film.  In fact, as of right now, this is my third favorite Star Trek film, right underneath my first and second favorites, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, respectively.  Star Trek Into Darkness doesn’t particularly go where no film has gone before, but it’s good.


Cast and Credits:
Kirk: Chris Pine
Spock: Zachary Quinto
McCoy: Karl Urban
Uhura: Zoe Saldana
Harrison: Benedict Cumberbatch
Pike: Bruce Greenwood

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by J. J. Abrams
Running time:

Sunday, June 2, 2013

After Earth (2013)



Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Release Date: May 31, 2013 (USA)




My Rating:  ★ ★ ½   (out of   ★ ★ ★ ½)
     (Click here for more info on my rating scale)


My time and money weren’t completely worth the experience, but they weren’t wasted either.


I have to say, as much as I like M. Night Shyamalan, I was unsure as to whether or not he would get any directing jobs after his failure of that terrible Last Airbender movie.  But, despite the negative reviews that After Earth has been receiving, I decided to give Shyamalan another chance and go see it.  It does suffer from several flaws, not the least of which are weak acting and some uneven pacing among other things, but there were some things I liked and will remember about it.  And if you ask me, it’s definitely a step back in the right direction for Shyamalan.

The film takes place a millennium after humanity was forced to leave Earth and settle on a distant planet.  Katai (Jaden Smith) wants to become a soldier like his father, General Cypher Raige (Will Smith), but he fails his test for cadet promotion.  He and his father have an estranged relationship; they are obviously emotionally distant from each other, and they even maintain something of a military-like relationship and behavior even at home.  Eventually, he and his father are on a ship, which is damaged in an asteroid storm and crash lands on Earth, the only survivors being Cypher and Katai.  Since the humans have left, the living organisms of Earth have evolved into dangerous, lethal forms.  Cypher’s legs having been broken in the crash, Katai must travel 100 kilometers across this dangerous terrain to where the tail of the ship is in order to retrieve a beacon.

So yes, After Earth is a futuristic science-fiction film, but it has a morality tale at its core.  It explores themes of fear, courage, coming of age, and the father-son relationship, and it even contains an ecological message.  It also has good visual effects, and a decent music score.  This is definitely a different type of film for Shyamalan; it didn’t even feel much like a Shyamalan film.  However, this film does have some unique and interesting aspects about it.  And, like some of Shyamalan's previous films, it even has a family relationship story (again, the father-son relationship).

The film’s main issues, however, have nothing to do with any reliance, if any, upon the effects.  In fact, if you ask me, it tries to truly focus on the characters, their relationship, and their struggles.  But it stumbles.  It suffers from some uneven pacing and storytelling and some weak dialogue, a few lines of which are unintentionally funny, and its level of intensity and emotion wavers throughout.  There were parts of the movie in which I felt some relatively strong emotion, intensity, and even suspense.  But other parts of the film came up short on it and weren’t as emotional, suspenseful, intense, or scary as they should have been, and instead ended up feeling a bit too dry and empty.

Another thing I thought the movie suffered from was its handling of its backstories and character development.  These should have been fleshed out and explored more, and several things about it could have been interesting and could even have contributed more to the story, emotionally.  Unfortunately, the film didn’t go into this as much as it should have, and instead it went a little over the top with scenes of Katai out in the wild (a few of these particular scenes did feel a bit like unnecessary “filler”).

Another major issue is the acting.  If you ask me, I think it’s a bit obvious that Jaden Smith only got the role because he is Will Smith’s son.  I found him tolerable and mostly effective, but his acting is wooden.  Will Smith’s acting is decent and effective, but even his acting is a bit stiff.

However, the film does make an effort, and while it does come up short on several aspects, I would say that it tries, and it doesn’t completely fail.  Overall, I didn’t much like the film, but I did find it a bit entertaining, and I felt that the effort, themes, and ideas behind it definitely showed through.  Now, again, I didn’t think the film was great; I just thought it was adequate, or so-so; but I’m still a bit glad that I saw it.  And again, it’s step back in the right direction for Shyamalan, in my opinion; maybe there’s still hope for him after all.  My time and money weren’t completely worth the experience, but they weren’t wasted either.



Cast and Credits:
Cypher Raige: Will Smith
Katai: Jaden Smith

Columbia Pictures, Overbrook Entertainment, and Blinding Edge Pictures present
A film directed by M. Night Shyamalan
Running time: 100 min.

Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some disturbing images

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Epic (2013)


Genre: Animation, Adventure, Family, Fantasy

Release Date: May 24, 2013



My Rating:  ★ ★ ★ ½   (out of   ★ ★ ★ ★)
    (Click here for more info on my rating scale)

Hardly epic, but good.



The way things a currently looking, this might very well not be a Pixar year.  A much as I might enjoy Monsters University and possibly Planes, they may very well not be my favorite animated films of the year, and they probably won’t be.  The Croods is already my favorite animated film of the year, and this movie, Epic, in my opinion, is also pretty good.

The main protagonist of the film is Mary Katherine, or M. K., a likable (and cute) teenage girl who, after her mother’s death, goes to live with her eccentric and reclusive father.  Her father believes that there is a miniature world of magical little people and creatures that live in the forest, and of course other people, including M. K., don’t believe him.  However, she soon magically shrunken and discovers this little world, which she must save.

And so on.  I admit, the movie is not very epic; it is a bit generic and has just about every cliché possible: good vs. evil, balance of nature, dysfunctional parent/child relationship, etc etc.  The film resembles a number of other films, such as FernGully, Avatar, and Honey I Shrunk the Kids, among others.  One of the main characters, the Nod, even resembles Flynn Rider from Tangled pretty strongly (but this wasn’t a problem for me). However, I disagree with everyone who is calling it charmless, forgettable, too reliant on visuals, and weak in terms of character, plot, heart, etc.  That’s right, I actually enjoyed it.

I actually thought the movie was handled fairly well and has a decent, solid, enjoyable, well-paced plot and decent character develop.  The film started out a bit slow, but I started to get more interested as trouble started brewing in the miniature forest world and then M. K. gets shrunken; from then on the movie was much better, and I got interested and emotionally involved in the story.  The film also has likable characters and relationships, and good voice performances by Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Colin Farrell, Beyoncé Knowles, and the rest of the cast.  It even had some good humorous parts, including a pair of mollusks and a three-legged dog.

The best part of the film is the animation; dazzling, lively, meticulously detailed, and it helps bring everything to life.  Like Avatar, this movie has what I found to be an interesting, immersing, well-designed setting.  Also, like Avatar, it has a good, strong ecological message, which I appreciate.  It also has heart, charm, and genuine emotion, and additional good moral messages such as friendship, love, bravery, and selflessness.

Bottom line: If you ask me, Epic is hardly epic, but it’s good.  And it was especially enjoyable for me on the big screen.  Kids well certainly love it; and if you are an adult, like me, just let out your inner child and have fun.


Cast and Credits:
M. K.: Amanda Seyfried
Nod: Josh Hutcherson
Queen Tara: Beyoncé Knowles
Ronin: Colin Farrell

Blue Sky Pictures presents
A film directed by Chris Wedge
Running time: 102 min.

Rated PG for mild action, some scary images, and brief rude language