How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Fantasy

Release Date: March 26, 2010

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

How to Train Your Dragon a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.

I never saw How to Train Your Dragon in the theater.  However, I did watch it when it came out on DVD.  Having not heard much about the film and not knowing anything about its story or any of that, I didn't have any expectations prior to watching it.  However, I ended up loving it.  In fact, in my opinion, DreamWorks has surpassed Pixar with this film.

The story is set in and around a Viking village up north called Berk, which often gets attacked by dragons.  The protagonist is Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), a teenage Viking who wants to be like his father and the other Vikings and wants to kill dragons.  Unfortunately, however, while he's smart and nice, he's scrawny and weak, not to mention socially awkward.  And he often ends up inadvertently causing trouble.  Because of this, he's pretty much considered a loser is his society.  Early one morning during a dragon raid (the opening scene of the movie), Hiccup goes out and shoots down a young dragon, specifically a Night Fury, but nobody believes he actually did so.  He goes out and finds the dragon he shot down.  It's a young dragon, about Hiccup's age, but Hiccup can't bring himself to kill it, so he frees it.  He and the dragon, whom he calls Toothless (due to his retractable teeth), begin to develop a forbidden friendship, and Hiccup realizes that his people have misjudged the species, and that there's more to the creatures than he and his people originally thought.

The story is very simple, predictable, derivative, and clichéd, and it's a total retread of basic cinema clichés, but it works, and I found it entertaining and immersive.  There is not much depth, story development, or character development, but it's still pretty effective as it is.  Also, the wonderful animation helps contribute to the emotion and energy of the story.  So, overall, to sum this up, this film works in many of the same ways that James Cameron's Avatar worked, and in fact it works much better.  They both consist of simple, predictable, and clichéd stories.  They don't have much depth, story development, or character development (like I just said above).  However, the stories are sufficient, well-structured, well-paced, and coherent, and they flow and make sense.  The characters are not developed much, but they are sufficient and very likable.  Also, both use brilliant visuals and keen detail to tell their stories and bring emotion into them.  Although I do have to admit that HTTYD has a somewhat better script and better dialogue.  Also, like Avatar, HTTYD doesn't go much into the depth and backgrounds of the characters, or much into any of that stuff, but a lot of that stuff - character background, personality, relationships, etc. - are evident in the detail.  So, given all of this, I think it would be safe to say that, in many ways, HTTYD is the Avatar of 2010.

Now, HTTYD doesn't have a new world, like Pandora, but it does have beautiful scenery all the same. Also, it has the lovable dragon Toothless, who is a full character in the film.  He was excellently designed, and is very cute and lovable.  In addition to excellent physical design, has a great personality, is smart, and has an excellent balance between that of a person and that of an animal.  He is a great character, and, in fact, the most memorable character in the film.  The voice actors all put on good performances, and they really help bring out their characters with their voice.  Jay Baruchel did a very good job as Hiccup.  A lot of people say that his voice is annoying, but I personally disagree.  I actually kind of like his voice, and it's just right for the character in the movie, Hiccup, who is very likable.  The other voice actors did an equally good job with their characters too, such as Gerard Butler as Stoick the Vast, America Ferrera as the likable and beautiful Astrid (Hiccup's love interest), Jonah Hill as Snotlout, and some others.

Like I said before, the animation is absolutely beautiful.  John Powell composed and excellent music score for the film.  As for the target audience: everyone - in many ways, it's like a kids movie, but in others it's pretty mature.  Also, being a good comedy, it has some good humor.  But it doesn't let the humor get too abundant.  The humor is spaced out throughout the film and given at appropriate intervals, and is balanced excellently with the story, drama, emotion, and moral messages, much like The Iron Giant was.  In fact, the film has a lot of similarities to The Iron Giant, and it works for many of the same reasons that movie works.  Everything about the movie is very well balanced.

Overall, I love this movie.  It's a great family film, it's very entertaining, touching, good-hearted, and visually beautiful.  It combines elements of The Iron Giant and Avatar, and breathes new life into old, exhausted clichés.  Also, it has great staying power - it's one of those movies, like Ghostbusters, that never really gets old on repeated viewings.  Unfortunately, DreamWorks plans to make a sequel to it.  Wow, way to go, DreamWorks, ruining the best film you've ever made.  Please don't make that sequel.  This is the type of movie that's just best left alone.  Leave a good thing alone.

One final note: I've only seen this movie in 2-D.  I've never seen it in 3-D, and guess what?  I don't want to.  Aside from the usual fact that 3-D is unnecessary, this movie is so awesome that it doesn't need 3-D.

Cast and Credits:

Hiccup: Jay Baruchel

Astrid: America Ferrera

Stoick: Gerard Butler

Gobber: Craig Ferguson

Snotlout: Jonah Hill

Ruffnut: Kristen Wiig

Tuffnut: T. J. Miller

Fishlegs: Christopher Mintz-Plasse

Spitelout: David Tennant

DreamWorks Animation presents

A film directed by Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders

Music by John Powell

Running time: 1 hour and 38 minutes

Rated PG for sequences of intense action and some scary images, and brief mild language

The Avengers (2012)

Released: May 4, 2012

Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

My Rating: 

(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.

I saw The Avengers on Thursday (May 17), one day after I finished my second semester of my freshman year of college.  I don't go to the theater that often, but I do plan on seeing a lot more movies in the theater, mostly sci-fi, over the summer.  In fact, I'm already planning on seeing Men in Black III and Prometheus, among other things.  And so I have begun my summer with The Avengers; to reward myself for finishing the semester, and to relax after studying for and taking my final exams, I went and saw this movie in the theater.  Personally, I'm not much of a superhero fan, but I quite enjoyed the movie.  In my opinion, The Avengers is a pretty good and entertaining movie, and it's a good theatrical experience.  James Berardinelli wrote in his review, "The Avengers kicks ass."  I agree.

Over the last few years, five movies have been made - Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, and Captain America - which have built up to, and became prequels to, The Avengers.  There were even things in those movies that hinted at them all being connected, and now this movie confirms it.  The Avengers are all assembled in this film: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, the Black Widow, and Hawkeye.  Yes, they're all played by the same actors, and they have the backgrounds that have been established for most of them in the "prequels" mentioned above.  The villain in the movie is Loki, who was the villain in Thor, and who now plans on using the Tesseract, a powerful energy cube, to open a portal to another part of the universe and attack the earth with a powerful army.  The Avengers are called together by Nick Fury, who runs an agency called S. H. I. E. L. D., and they must stop Loki from carrying out his plans.  There's more to the story, but I won't give any more away.

I'm sure there are things that can be criticized about the movie.  However, it's really not worth it, given there are so many good things about the movie, and the entire experience is very enjoyable, so I'm not going to bother with an in-depth review/criticism.  In a way, the film is sort of critic-proof (for lack of a better term).  So here's my advice: don't dissect or overly analyze the movie.  Just sit back and enjoy it.  That's not to say that it's a total Transformers-like junk movie or anything.  It's actually halfway decent.

The actors put on a good performance and really bring out their characters, and the interactions between the characters are good - the gathering of the different superheroes is handled pretty well.  The story is pretty solid, and it's coherent and appropriately paced.  The visual and special effects and action scenes are great.  Alan Silvestri composed an effective score for the movie.  Overall, the movie is halfway decent and entertaining.  It doesn't have much depth, and the story isn't the best, but it's fun nonetheless, and it handles its story okay.  The two-and-a-half hour running length of the movie pretty much zipped by for me.  So, while I don't think this movie is great, it's definitely entertaining and worth seeing, and it's a very good big screen experience.




Cast and Credits:
Tony Stark / Iron Man: Robert Downey, Jr.
Steve Rogers / Captain America: Chris Evans
Thor: Chris Hemsworth
Bruce Banner / The Hulk: Mark Ruffalo
Loki: Tom Hiddleston
Clint Barton / Hawkeye: Jeremy Renner
Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow: Scarlett Johansson
Nick Fury: Samuel L. Jackson

Paramount Pictures presents
A film directed by Joss Whedon
Running time: 143 min.

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference

Avatar (2009)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Family, Fantasy, Romance, Sci-Fi

Release Date: December 18, 2009



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



In my opinion, Avatar is an okay movie, with a beautiful new world, an okay story, likable characters, good themes, some heart, and some nice entertainment.

I missed the initial theatrical release of Avatar in Devember of 2009, but I got the DVD the following July and watched the movie on my television at home, and I was quite blown away.  I gave the movie a full four star rating.  Between then and now, my liking for it has decreased.  How I feel about the story, characters, and everything else about the movie is pretty much exactly the same as how I felt about it when I saw it the first time, but to a lesser degree (I've changed my rating to a three-star rating); instead of loving it, I think it's okay.

The story is set in the year 2154, and it involves an RDA mission to an earth-sized moon called Pandora. We enter this new world through the eyes of Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine who goes on this mission on short notice. For a while, the humans had some success in interacting with the Na'vi via "avatars", remote-controlled bodies. However, relations between the natives and the human have turned bad, and all interactions between them stopped. However, Jake eventually meets the local native tribe, falls in love with them and the new world, and ends up fighting against the RDA in defense of the new people and world he now considers his home.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: the CGI is visually stunning and almost flawless, and with extreme detail. In fact, the movie goes beyond having great visuals. It introduces a wonderful new world. It has a lot of earth-like characteristics, but it also has a lot of new and exotic characteristics (and even some uniqueness in the familiar characteristics) the combination of which is a beautiful world. Overall, the world is something we've all seen before, yet never seen before at the same time; simultaneously old and new. And it's all portrayed excellently with brilliant scope and spectacle. The same is true about the natives and the avatars. Like the new world, they are portrayed excellently with the CGI with utmost detail. The natives are humanoids, but they're ten to twelve feet tall, blue-skinned, and golden-eyed, and they even have tails. They are an interesting blend of human, alien, and feline. The same is true about the avatars. The Na'vi were well designed, especially Neytiri, who is beautiful. I found Jake and Neytiri to be very likable, and a great couple, and their combined physical appearance and personalities give them a likability that pierces through the special effects.

That's not to say that everything about the film is perfect. The story is extremely basic, extremely derivative, and a bit corny. The characters, aside from Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, are pretty shallow, especially the villains, who are very one-dimensional (but effective). Also, the dialogue is very clichéd and a bit corny, almost like something out of a kids movie. However, despite these flaws, the movie works. The story clichéd, predictable, etc., but it's coherent, well-structured, well-paced, solid, and consistent, and it flows. The characters, although lacking a bit in development, are effective. The three protagonists Jake, Neytiri, and Grace, should have been better in terms of development, but they are effective and I was able to have a sufficient emotional attachment to them and their relationships. Even the dialogue, weak as it is, gets its job done.

We've seen this story a million times, but never like this. The story could be considered a sci-fi version of Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves, set in a new fantasy world. Just like in original Star Wars trilogy, Avatar brings some new life into old clichés. In my opinion, the original Star Wars trilogy does a much better job at this, but Avatar does an okay job at it. The story combines elements of Pocahontas, Titanic, Braveheart, Star Wars, and even The Matrix.James Cameron also borrows from some of his own films, including Aliens (military/technology) and Titanic (the love story, and the way the movie is structured).

Also, the new world isn't simply in the movie to look nice. In my opinion, it actually feels alive, and it's very much a character itself in the film. I want to make it clear that I was not duped or blinded by the visuals. I felt that Cameron actually used the visuals and new world to evoke emotion, and also used them as part of the story itself. In terms of the script, the storytelling is basic, by the numbers, but I also felt that a lot of the storytelling was within these great visuals and the world, and in the way it was combined into the story. The effects helped me get immersed into the new world and helped me care about the characters and the story. Also, the film has great sound - quality, effects, editing, etc. These sound aspects also added a bit to the emotion and immersing effects of the story. I also liked James Horner's score, which, in my opinion, is some of the best work of Horner's career.

I felt that a lot of what made the story enjoyable was within the simplicity, and in the details. And, in my opinion, while the film doesn't have much intelligence, it does have a little bit, which very few other movies like this have. It's actually a halfway decent blockbuster, and it does not contain the obnoxiousness and imbecility of films like Michael Bay's films. Unlike those films, Avatar actually has some heart and soul, and characters that the audience can care about. There are definitely several things that can be criticized - the simple and derivative story, the clichés, the hammy dialogue, and the one-dimensional villains - but these things are typical of blockbusters, which is what this film is.  And a lot can be said in defense of these aspects in this movie (and it has a lot of Cameron elements in it). Besides, these flaws are typical of blockbusters.  Also, like Titanic, while the story is almost completely predictable, there are also smaller things along the way that aren't.
Overall, I thought the movie was okay. I found it somewhat emotional, memorable, and entertaining, and it's nice family entertainment. However, the movie that changes movies?? No way.

Cast and Credits:

Jake Sully: Sam Worthington

Neytiri: Zoë Saldana

Dr. Grace Augustine: Sigourney Weaver

Colonel Miles Quaritch: Stephen Lang

Norm Spellman: Joel David Moore

Trudy Chacon: Michelle Rodriguez

Parker Selfridge: Giovanni Ribisi

Mo’at: CCH Pounder

Tsu’tey: Laz Alonso

Eytukan: Wes Studi

Dr. Max Patel: Dileep Rao

Twentieth Century Fox presents

A film Written and Directed by James Cameron

Produced by James Cameron and John Landau

Music by James Horner

Running time: 2 hours and 42 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking

District 9 (2009)

Genre: Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Released: August 14, 2009

My Rating: 

(Click here for more info on my rating scale)

To put it mildly, District 9 is a smart, entertaining, creative, and emotional sci-fi film.  I wouldn't say that it's great, but it's pretty darn good.



Personally, I am a bit of a science fiction lover.  I have seen tons of sic-fi films, from fun and lighthearted popcorn flicks to deep and emotional ones.  I've seen clichéd and basic-formula ones, and ones that have a distinct uniqueness about them - new worlds, unique scientific concepts, memorable scientific technology and what not, and much more; and, best of all, unique twists on stories.  District 9 is one such unique science fiction film.  It has several obvious clichéd and borrowed aspects, but overall it's an original and creative film, and pretty memorable, too.  I didn't see it when it came out, and, in fact, I had never even heard of it until sometime last year.  So, after reading a bit about the film, yet still not knowing much about it, I decided to give it a try, and I'm glad I did.

District 9 eludes many expectations of a sic-fi audience.  The film is set in an alternate timeline, where, in 1982, a spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa (instead of a usual sci-fi setting).  The aliens on board, instead of being evil and strong with an urge do kill, are helpless and in weak condition.  The aliens, unable to operate the ship anymore, are taken to a temporary camp on the ground underneath where the ship is hovering.  Unfortunately, due to the the high population of these aliens, and to typical political flaws, over the years, the temporary camp eventually turns into a giant slum segregated from the rest of Johannesburg.  Also, the initial welcome wears off, and humans begin to discriminate against the aliens, nicknamed "prawns" due to their ugly appearance.  Finally, in 2010, the Multi-National United munitions corporation is sent to evict these prawns from the slum, with Wikus van der Merwe in charge.  In the process, Wikus is exposed to a strange alien chemical, at which point his personal nightmare begins and everything changes drastically for him, and the story really starts to get going and unfold.  I won't give anything else away about the story after this last thing: along the way, Wikus befriends an alien, and his small son.

District 9 combines dosages of the man-befreinds-other-race-and-turns-against-his-own-people theme, the don't-judge-a-book-by-it's-cover moral, political elements, elements of racism, segregation, and discrimination, and a bit of E. T. and some other themes.  It uses its running time wisely and tells its story very effectively.  Some of the film is in documentary-style, and part of it is in regular style, and there are even some shots seen here and there from security cameras, and things like that.  Visually, the film has a gritty, ugly look about it, adds brilliantly to the tone of the film, and gives it a bit of a more realistic feel to it.  Even the aliens themselves are pretty ugly, but they are very well portrayed with top-notch CGI.  In fact, all of the special effects in the film are very good.  Clinton Shorter composed a very effective score for this film.  It's not a great score or anything, but it does help bring out the tone and emotion of the film, just like the special effects do.

There is not a single actor in the film whom I have heard of before seeing this film.  However, the actors' performances are pretty good.  The actors really bring out their characters very well.  I liked the characters.  They are strong and dynamic.  Wikus is a good protagonist, and I really cared about him while watching the film.  I also came to like the aliens he befriends - they may be ugly, but I really felt true emotion for them and their inner characters, who they really are inside, especially the big one (the father).  I know hardly anything about director Neil Blomkamp, but he did a very good job with this film.  There are definitely some things that he could have done better, and the overall film was not great, but Blomkamp did a good job overall, and gave us a pretty good film.

So, overall, while District 9 is, in my opinion, not quite an iconic or classic science fiction film, it's still pretty unique, and it has some pretty memorable things about it.  It's not really something I might remember immediately many years from now as a classic film or anything, but, like I said before, it's pretty memorable.  It's a smart, emotional, and entertaining science fiction film, and it's definitely worth seeing at least once.



Cast and Credits:
Wikus: Sharlto Copley
Christopher: Jason Cope
Koobus Venter: David James
Tania: Vanessa Haywood
Fundiswa Mhlanga: Mandla Gaduka

TriStar Pictures presents
A film directed by Neil Blomkamp
Running time: Approx. 112 minutes

Rated R for bloody violence and pervasive language

Psycho (1960)

Genre: Horror, Mystery, Thriller

Released: August 10, 1960

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

            Psycho is a good, memorable film.  I don't love it, but I do like it; it's a good piece of cinema and is notable for many things.  First of all, the black-and-white cinematography is good, and it really contributes to the tone and mood of the film.  There are several great camera shots and sequences.  The music is good too, and it also contributes to the tone of the film, probably even more so than the cinematography.  Finally, and probably most importantly, the film is noteworthy for its storytelling.  Alfred Hitchcock broke several Hollywood cinema traditions of the time, and created a film that contains elements that can be easily recycled, yet at the same time is very unique, and is a good mystery horror thriller.
            The story starts off with Marion Craine, an office worker in Phoenix who desperately wants to be with her lover.  When her employer entrusts Marion to bank $40,000, Marion leaves town, steals the money, and goes on the lam.  Along the way, she encounters a used car salesman and a policeman, who notice her somewhat nervous behavior, which she is not good at hiding.  Eventually, tired of her long drive and caught in a storm, she exits the main highway and pulls into the out-of-the-way Bates Motel to spend the night.  The motel is run by a young man called Norman Bates, who seems to be dominated by his twisted mother.  Events of the night change the course of the film afterwards starting, with an excellent and unforgettable sequence in which Marion is murdered in her shower, and her journey, therefore, comes to an end.  Soon after, others come to the motel searching for Marion, including Loomis, private investigator Arbogast, and Marion's sister.  They make shocking discoveries.
            The story isn't all that great, but what makes it good and involving is the way it develops and unfolds.  There are a lot of aspects of the movie that are not so special, and ones that have been used again and again over the years.  There are some things about the movie that seem cliché, and possibly a bit cheesy.  However, despite all this, after all these years, Psycho still has a uniqueness that is memorable and ultimately not copied to this day.  Like I said, it's not the most extraordinary story, but it's structured in a great way.  It tampers with some traditional narrative elements.  It starts out seemingly normal in terms of narrative.  Then, we are shocked at the movie's midpoint as Marion, our protagonist for the first half of the movie, is killed, and the course of the film is drastically changed, and what follows is a series of (like I said before) shocking discoveries and twists.  The audience's expectations keep being flouted, especially in the second half of the film, especially in two major ones, the second of which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen the film.  It doensn't have great story or character complexity, but yes, it's strong.
            The stark black-and-white cinematography used in the film is very good, and even further contributes the the tone of the film.  Also, by far one of the most important aspects of the film is the music.  Bernard Herrmann composed an excellent score for the film.  The film works fine with its narrative alone, but the music really brings it all to life and supports everything.  The music consisted of all string instruments, and the music is consistently dissonant and tense.  The music, like everything else about the film, can be easily recycled in movies, but, like I said before, Psycho still has a level of uniqueness that really can't be matched.
            Overall, it's an important landmark in the history of cinema, and it's still a good film, even to this day - not at a four-star level, but still very good.  I found it to be a very good movie experience.  If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do.

Cast and Credits:
Norman Bates: Anthony Perkins
Marion Crane: Janet Leigh
Lila Crane: Vera Miles
John Gavin: Sam Loomis
Det. Milton Arbogast: Martin Balsam

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Black and White
Approx. 109 minutes

Citizen Kane (1941)

Genre: Drama, Mystery

Released: September 5, 1941

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




I wouldn't call Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made, but, even to this day, it's definitely a great piece of cinema and a wonderful example of storytelling.

Citizen Kane has been lauded the best film ever made by many people.  Do I particularly agree?  No.  But nonetheless, I think it is a great movie.  It has some of the dated characteristics of cinema of it's period, the 1940's, but a lot of it's characteristics are still strong nowadays.  I understand that the plot has some parallels to the real life story of William Randolph Hearst, but I don't know all that much about him, so I'm going to talk about only the film, which is great itself.  The film is an important figure in the history of cinema, technologically and in terms of storytelling.

The story is really not all that complicated, but the way it unfolds is great and engaging, and almost makes it seem complex, and it's told from a number of perspectives.  The film opens up with the death of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), the owner of the Inquirer, a New York newspaper.  Just before dying, Kane utters the word "Rosebud".  Then an approximately ten minute long newsreel summarizes the story of Kane, representing the public's view of him, and an overview of the story.  Then, for the rest of the film, we are shown more details and depth of the story via flashbacks as news reporters go around and obtain information about Kane and his life.

For those of you who haven't seen the film, I won't fully spoil it for you.  I'll just give an overview.  Kane achieved success and rose to power, but eventually suffered a major blow to his reputation, and he crashed.  Along the way, he even gets married and divorced twice.  With the aid of his closest friend, Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), Kane starts builds a nationwide newspaper empire.  He is ruthless as he achieves this, yet generous at the same time in a few ways, such as being willing to lose a million dollars a year to gain more newspaper circulation.  Eventually, he runs for a political position, but his success to this is lost as his rival uncovers his affair with a "singer", and after this, his reputation is destroyed and his life's success declines.  There is more to the story, but, like I said, I'm only giving a summary; I'm not giving the full story away, for those of you who haven't seen the film.

All the while, we, the audience, and the reporters in the film, wonder who Kane really was, not just the story of the events of his life, from his rise to his fall, but who he really was underneath.  They believe that a key to finding this out lies in his dying word, "Rosebud".  At one point in the film, a reporter, Thompson, says, about the word, "Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost."  At another point, someone (I don't remember who) says, "I don't think one word can describe one man's life".  The entire movie is a puzzle, a puzzle of Kane's life, and not just that, but of who he really was (for lack of a better, deeper term).  "Rosebud" is just one piece, a missing piece, of that puzzle, but it may be an important piece.  Although, then again, maybe not.  We do eventually find out what the word represents and what its origin is, and it represents one of the important messages of the movie, but I won't spoil it for, again, those of you who haven't seen the film.

The film is great in terms of its storytelling.  In addition to its storytelling, the film is also an important point in cinema in terms of a few other factors, such as cinematograpy.  One of the most striking of the cinematographic effects is ths stark contrast between brightness and darkness.  Also notable are the camera angles - which create many unique shots throughout the film - and the use of deep focus, enabling images both in the back ground and the foreground to stay clear in focus.  I also liked the music score.  Bernard Herrmann, who also composed the score for Psycho (1960), created an effective score with very good combinations and uses of harmony, orchestration, melody, and other musical elements, and really supports the drama and moods of the film.

So, in summary, while I personally don't think Citizen Kane is the best film ever made, I did find it to be great.  Watching it was a very good experience for me.  It's great in terms of storytelling and technical aspects, and, overall, like I've said, it's a great piece of cinema, and an important landmark in cinema history.

Cast and Credits:
Charles Foster Kane: Orson Welles
Jedediah Leland: Joseph Cotten
Susan Alexander: Dorothy Comingore
Walter Parks Thatcher: George Coulouris
Jim Geddes: Ray Collins
Mrs. Kane: Anges Moorehead
Emily Norton: Ruth Warric

Directed by Orson Welles
Black and White
Approx. 120 minutes

No MPAA rating.

John Carter (2012)

Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy, Sci-Fi

Released: February 9, 2012

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




Overall, in my opinion, John Carter is basically a two-and-a-half star film, but it hits enough high notes and sustains enough energy along the way to be enjoyable as a sci-fi blockbuster and scrape a three star rating from me.

            I saw John Carter in the theater on Friday, March 14.  I've never read the books that the movie is based on, but based on the reviews I've skimmed, I had pretty low expectations for the film.  And a lot of the negative aspects I sort of expected of the film were confirmed.  Overall, I didn't like the film, but I did sort of enjoy it a little, sort of as a guilty pleasure, almost.  The CGI is great, and very convincing, and I enjoyed the visual experience.  As for the story and other important aspects, the film is a bit weak.  There are many flaws in the film; there's no denying that.  The story is derivative, and it suffers from a somewhat sloppy and slightly convoluted plot.  Overall, in my opinion, it's basically a two-and-a-half star film, but it hits enough high notes and sustains enough energy along the way to be enjoyable as a sci-fi blockbuster and scrape a three star rating from me.
            The movie is about John Carter, a Civil War veteran who is trying to lead a normal life.  He is locked up for refusing to join the Army, but he escapes and is pursued.  After a bit of action, he hides in a cave, in which he encounters someone holding a medallion.  When Carter touches the medallion, he is transported to Mars, where the lower gravity enables him to leap incredible heights.  His first encounter with the natives are with the tall, green-skinned, four-armed, horned Thorks.  Soon, he ends up rescuing a princess, Dejah Thoris, of another native group on the planet called the "red" humanoids, and he soon learns of the civil war going on between that group and the other group, the "blue" humanoids.
            The director, Andrew Stanton, has previously directed animated films, such as Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and this is his first live-action movie, which may have contributed to the flaws in the movie.  Like I said, the movie is very flawed.  It's somewhat sloppy, and a bit confusing at times, and not fully coherent (but it's not incoherent).  The progression of the story and the interrelation and connection of everything in it doesn't completely fit, and is not really how it should have been.  A few things actually felt to me like they were almost thrown together.  And in a few ways, it felt almost like a cartoon.  However, the movie does maintain acceptable coherency, etc., and it maintains a level of energy that kept me at least somewhat entertained; surprisingly, I never got bored during this movie.  The movie is a bit confusing at times, and there are a few twists, and I had a bit of trouble keeping track of some names and stuff, but it doesn't really matter, because it's pretty easy to understand the overall plot.  In fact, I actually left the theater at one point to go to the restroom, and I came back three minutes later, but it didn't matter because it was pretty easy for me to pick up on what was basically happening.
            There are some positive things that I can say about the movie.  The visuals are great, and everything in the movie is very well portrayed with the CGI, and in pretty good detail.  The movie introduces a new cultre/world/etc., although it doesn't stand out as a character within itself, like the new world in Avatar did.  But it's still pretty nice.  I also liked the ships; they were very well designed.  In fact, all the special effects were good.  Dejah Thoris is very pretty, and she's a highlight of the movie.  I liked the cast of the movie, especially Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins.  I also somewhat liked the music score.  The story, plot, progression, development, and pacing all needed to be much better.
            Overall, I didn't like the movie or anything, but it was better than I thought it would be.  I found it a bit enjoyable, although I would definitely not recommend it for any awards or special recognition or anything.  If fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is forgotten in the near future.  In my opinion, it's basically a two-and-a-half star movie, but it does hit enough high notes to be a bit enjoyable as a sci-fi blockbuster and to scrape (although barely) a three star rating from me.  Although, it's not a movie that I could really watch over and over again; once was really enough for me.


Cast and Credits:
John Carter: Taylor Kitsch
Dejah Thoris: Lynn Collins
Sola: Samantha Morton
Tars Tarkas: Willem Dafoe
Tal Hajus: Thomas Haden Church
Matai Shang: Mark Strong
Tardos Mors: Ciaran Hinds
Sab Than: Dominic West
Edgar Rice Burroughs: Daryl Sabara

Walt Disney Pictures presents
A film directed by Andrew Stanton
Based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action