Movie Review #74: The Polar Express (2004)

With Christmas quite literally just around the corner, I might as well get to review at least one Christmas movie before the big day.

The Polar Express a fully motion capture animated film based on the classic children's book of the same name. A book that I remember having read to me by my parents.

The story goes that a boy who doesn't believe in Santa Claus gets whisked away to the North Pole on a magical train called The Polar Express. Where on this journey he learns to believe again.

I saw this movie in the theater when I was seven years old and I distinctly remember I was confused when I watched it. It wasn't until after it ended when I realized that it was animated. At times I thought it was real but then there were moments when I thought it was animated! It baffled me and looking back on it, I understand why I was so confused by it! And that was my first experience with motion capture animation!

Motion capture animation is, what I think, a filmmaking style that hasn't been perfected yet. When used for elements of a movie like for Gollum in The Lord of the Rings or Caeser in Rise of the Planet of the Apes I think it is when it works. But when the entire film is made using motion capture is where I think needs work. In particular on the human aspect because the characters just don't look real. The biggest problem with motion capture is that the characters' emotions and expressions aren't fully developed. You can never tell if the characters are sad or happy. The eyes of the children look rather dead and lifeless. Gollums' eyes looked more alive than the children did in this movie!

Though there are other moments in the film that do look fantastic. Particularly any moment that had to do with the train. There are a few particularly stunning scenes involving the train that I loved. They were fast paced, exciting and a lot of fun.

Tom Hanks plays the conductor of the train and I liked him in that role. But that is only one of his six other roles in this film. Six roles. I swear am not making that up. I've heard of actors playing more than one role in a film like Peter Sellers did in Dr. Strangelove. But it worked for Sellers because he was able to disguise his voice for each different character. Unlike with Hanks who's voice is so recognizable that even when it is deepened I can still tell it is him. And that really takes me out of the moment because I end up focusing on the actor instead of the character.

As for the kids, I didn't really have a problem with them. None of them really ended up getting much development but I don't think that the purpose of the film was to give you a vivid backstory on each character. For example: We never know why the lonely boy says that "Christmas just does't work out for him." Maybe things like that is supposed to be left up to the imagination. Like how you never get to know their names. I really like that aspect. I think that that is really interesting.

I personally think that the story is the strongest element to the film. I might be digging to deep into the story, but I felt that they weren't just telling a story about a boy who stopped believing in Santa but rather someone who lost his religion and fell away from his faith. Which as a kid, learning that Santa isn't real is kind of like thinking that there isn't a God. That is a very interesting and difficult story to tell and I think it is done pretty well. I also like how he has to believe in Santa to hear the bell ring. Kind of like how you have to believe in God to fully receive his gifts. Again, just another parallel I found.

On a technical level, the best part of the film is without a doubt Alan Silvestri's magical score. I adore this theme. To me, when I hear it, I think of one word: Christmas. He manages to capture all the beauty, majesty and the wonder I felt as a kid at Christmastime. And the Josh Groban song at the end tops it off beautifully

Final Report: While I enjoy some of the visuals, Alan Silvestri's score and the deeper meaning to the story, The Polar Express is just a Christmas movie that is just alright. I think it's worth a watch but it isn't a Christmas movie that I have to watch every December.

Movie Review #73: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug picks up exactly where The Unexpected Journey left off. This time around, Gandalf departs from the group to continue his search for the Necromancer while Bilbo and the dwarves continue their trek to Erebor to find the secret back door into the abandoned dwarf kingdom.

Words can't describe how much I loved this movie. To say that this is an improvement from the first film is a major understatement. This to me is The Empire Strikes Back of The Hobbit films. It's hard for me to say that because not only is there one film left in the franchise, but I also really loved the first film despite its flaws. This sequel fixes all of the problems the first film had and improves upon what was good from the start!

For starters: I was never bored. As much as I did enjoy An Unexpected Journey, some of the scenes in the theatrical release I felt should have been cut out because they felt unneeded or just dragged on for too long. Here is not the case! Not only was I left wanting more (I'll get to that later) but the scenes that were distinctly slower never lost my interest. The film slows down when we arrive at Laketown but what happened was still very interesting.

Secondly: Stuff actually happens! Yeah I know things like the trolls and the riddles in the dark were in the first film but what happens in this film actually felt important. I feel that the first film was made to introduce the characters and their goals. While here, I feel that the characters' journey really began.

Finally: It didn't feel like a kids movie. The Desolation of Smaug got rid of the goofy, kiddish tone from the first film and made it violent, intense and even a bit scary.

One thing I didn't get a chance to talk about in my review of the first film were the characters and the actors performances. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins really is perfect casting. Not only is Martin Freeman an awesome actor, but he captures all of the emotions, reactions and thoughts running through the head of someone who gets thrust into a situation that is way bigger than he expected. The look on his face when he sees Smaug for the first time is a genuine look of terror.

What I like about Gandalf in The Hobbit is that we actually get to see him use magic. In The Lord of the Rings we didn't really see that very much. And plus, I think that Gandalf the Grey is way cooler than Gandalf the White. As far as the dwarves go, I originally thought that they were pretty goofy as a whole. But I personally like them now. Some more than others obviously.

Even though they weren't in the book, Legolas returns with a lovely She-Elf played by Evangeline Lilly named Tauriel that Peter jackson completely made up. I found it odd to bring back Legolas but then I remembered that his father Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, was in it so it does make sense. I'm just very glad that those two characters actually served a purpose to the film. They were fun to watch and pretty cool additions to the cast. A pretty obvious love triangle does form and while I usually can't stand it when that happens, I didn't mind it because I like the characters.

I also liked how the film portrayed Wood Elves. That Wood Elves are very different from the elves of Rivendell. The Wood Elves were very aggressive with a very short temper compared to Rivendell's calm and reasonable personality.

Bard the Bowman was introduced and he was a really cool character too. He had this vibe to him that reminded me of Aragorn. Which does make sense because their character backstories are kind of similar. I am excited for what he's going to do in the final film.

The action is far more abundant in this film than the first. There is a sequence with the dwarves in barrels that had me and my viewing audience rolling with laughter! It was fast, intense and just a whole lot of fun! At times it felt a bit Disney-ish but never too much where it took me out of the moment.

As for Smaug the Dragon, he has got to be without a doubt one of the coolest villains I've ever seen on the big screen. Everything about him was intimidating. Like his eyes, voice, design and his very size. You really felt the massiveness of Smaug when he was conversing with Bilbo. The scene took place in Erebor which is an enormous city and they put a huge dragon in the heart of it with a Hobbit that looks absolutely minuscule compared to the things around him. The scope and grandness was definitely evident. I feel that Peter Jackson did with Smaug what he did with Gollum in The Two Towers, which was have someone give a great performance with the assistance of some brilliant special effects. Benedict Cumberbatch voices the dragon and he delivers the lines with such sarcasm and spite. I just love how he taunts Bilbo by calling him "Barrel Rider".

The only problem I had with the film is how it ends. It really ended on the cliffhanger of all cliffhangers and will definitely leave countless viewers unsatisfied. When the credits began rolling I was able to distinguish a resounding grumble of disapproval for my fellow viewing audience. Which is completely understandable. But even with the ending, I was never left unsatisfied! I actually appreciated the ending because it reminded me of The Empire Strikes Back. Only we only have to wait one year for the final film instead of three.

Final Report: I adored every second this two and a half hour, Middle Earth epic took me on. It was fun, fast-paced, action-packed, exciting and never boring. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is one of the best movies I've seen all year. If not the best!

Movie Review #72: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

With The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug now in theaters (look forward to that this week), it only makes sense to review the first film of the trilogy that had both critics and die-hard Tolkien fans split right down the Middle Earth.

A film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy masterpiece had been floating around ever since Peter Jackson finished filming The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But the idea of a Hobbit movie was seeming more and more unlikely. Rumors were floating around and it essentially became one of the most notorious film teases for nearly 10 years! At one time the film was said to be directed by Guillermo Del Toro. But after years of deliberation, Jackson finally said that The Hobbit would finally make its way to the big screen!

But there was a catch or two. It was announced that Tolkien's prequel to The Lord of the Rings that was half the size of The Fellowship of the Ring would be turned into three separate films. This launched an uproar on internet message boards all around the globe. "How could they turn one tiny book into three separate films rounding out to roughly a total of nine hours altogether?!?" Fanboys were both baffled and unnerved by this.

But there was another catch! Jackson also said that the trilogy would be filmed in 48 frames per second. The filming style would "make the viewing experience like you were actually there." Oh, and it would also be in 3-D because for some odd reason 3-D became popular again. I blame Spy Kids 3.

So with all the hype, anticipation, and nervousness surrounding the film, did it end up being any good? That is a grey area for some people.

Before the film premiered, a poster was released of all 13 dwarves huddled together. From that photo alone you could predict the films' distinctly different tone from the Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit was going to be more "kid-friendly". And that was a problem for many fans, but I understood the tonal change because since The Hobbit book is more kid friendly than the Rings trilogy. Being a prequel, the book was supposed to serve as a means to ease children into The Lord of the Rings.

That being said, there are some scenes that were a bit too goofy and kiddish even for me. For example: The scene in the mountain when the Goblin King is singing and dancing I felt was a bit too much. I even felt that the scene with the trolls, which in the book was very comical, pandered a bit too much to juvenile, middle-school humor.

Aside from the tonal difference, the visual effects were the second major difference from The Lord of the Rings. While the Rings trilogy went the Men In Black route, perfectly blending an even amount of practical effects and CGI, The Hobbit relies heavily on CGI. Which does make sense considering technology has advanced 10+ years since Return of the King and CGI has become more and more relied upon in major motion pictures. But I feel that there were some sequences that could have been done practically over the use of computers.

Even though I sound like I didn't like the effects, I really did enjoy them! The people over at WETA are the kings of CGI and everything looks very grand and impressive. For the first time in 10 years, Gollum returned to the big screen and he has never looked better! The "Riddles in the Dark" scene was my favorite part in the book and I adored every single second Bilbo and Gollum conversed with each other.

But perhaps the biggest issue the film suffers from is the pacing. Which is and issue that The Lord of the Rings films never suffered from because I have and will never complain about their total nine hour run time. With The Hobbit, there were many sequences that I felt could have been cut out of the theatrical cut. Like the meeting at Rivendell I felt was completely unnecessary. To me, that scene was about as boring as Corusant was in The Phantom Menace.

The film also takes almost 45 minutes for the actual journey to head on the road. All that time was either spent with the prologue or in Bilbo's house. While many hated that aspect, I loved all the time that took place in Bilbo's house! Not only did it introduce us to all the dwarves, but it was just so great to see The Shire again! That is probably the biggest reason I enjoyed this film so much despite its evident flaws. It was just so wonderful going back to Middle Earth. And the action scenes, while they do take a while to get to, are fantastic! The chase scene in the mountain was one of the most well directed action scenes in all of last year! It was fun, entertaining, intense, super fast and it was awesome! It could have used at least two more scenes like that scattered throughout though.

As for the 3-D and 48fps, I can't say anything about it because I am silently boycotting 3-D because I am getting really sick of it. But maybe I will end up seeing the final Hobbit film in 3-D. But that is a year away so anything could happen.

Final Report: While it takes some time to fully get moving and it does encounter a few bumps in the road, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is still a grand, masterful epic and welcome return to Middle Earth. Even if it doesn't obtain the level of greatness that The Lord of the Rings reached, I still love it.

News: Disney owns Indiana Jones now?

I was going to talk about Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman but I really don't care as much about that as I do for this story making headlines.

According to Entertainment Weekly, Disney has now acquired the rights to any future Indiana Jones films through some business gobbledygoop with Paramount. Disney said not reveal anything any news about a future installment in the much loved franchise.

This might sound like blasphemy to some people and if you ardently disagree, I completely understand. But I would much rather see Indiana Jones 5 than Star Wars Episode VII.

Go ahead. Post your hateful comments below ranting about how "the franchise should just stay dead after Kingdom of the Crystal Skull because it died then and there."

In all fairness, I like Crystal Skull! I think it is unfairly bashed upon. While the first three films were made in the style of 1940's action serials, Crystal Skull was made in the style of a 1950's B-movie. And when you look at it in that light, I think it succeeds. It's flawed but still fun.

But I would only be okay with a fifth Indiana Jones if Harrison Ford returned to don the whip and fedora. If it was a film that revolved around Shia Labeouf taking over the role of Indy, then I would be whole-heartedly against it.

I would also like it if Steven Spielberg returned to direct. Or at the very least, have him on set as a producer.

Since Disney said that this shouldn't be happening for a while, I guess only time will tell.

Let's hope for the best!

Movie Review #71: Red 2 (2013)

I'm back! Contrary to what you might think I am still alive. I just haven't found the time to post anything due to family being up for Thanksgiving and school and all that other fun stuff. But now that Christmas is around the corner, a ton of new films I am excited for are hitting the theaters like The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, 47 Ronin, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty and Saving Mr. Banks. So look forward to that and my thoughts on the Wonder Woman casting.

In Red 2, Bruce Willis and the entire gang from the first film (except for Morgan Freeman and Karl Urban) reunite to stop the detonation of a lost nuclear weapon.

The first Red film was a complete surprise to both critics and audiences. It was a real sleeper hit because many dismissed it to be either another generic Bruce Willis movie or too goofy to be good. But it ended up being a lot better than anyone every expected. Talk about a real "Don't judge a book by its cover" scenario. Or in this case, "Don't judge a film by its trailer."

When you think about it, Red sounds like a comedic parody of The Expendables. Both films have all-star casts. The Expendables had an all star cast of legendary action stars while Red featured legends of acting in the supporting cast. But both films follow a similar plot. It is fascinating how much the two films parallel each other. You can't really say one copied the other because both came out the same year within a matter of two months of each other. But enough film facts, comparisons and other assorted movie jargon. On with the review.

What made the first film so much fun is found in its sequel. John Malkovich is still hysterical. His character is so fascinating and the backstory they gave him is just as funny as the actions he does in the film. Every time he's on screen he steals the show. He's like Kramer from Seinfeld. On Kramer isn't nearly as unpredictable as Malkovich. The script is infinitely superior to The Expendables because the banter the characters share isn't just a bunch of cliched action one-liners, plot exposition and Sylvester Stallone dialogue. While there is exposition, the characters actually get developed and the comedic dialogue is actually funny and not unintentionally funny like in The Expendables.

Joining the cast are Catharine Zeta-Jones, Byung Hun Lee and Sir Anthony Hopkins. Catharine Zeta Jones plays an old ex girlfriend of Bruce Willis's and she and Mary Louise Parker have some very amusing scenes trying to outdo the other to win over Willis's affection. Byung Hun Lee basically takes over Karl Urban's role from the first film as the guy who is sent to take out Bruce Willis. And while it is a ton of fun seeing him take out 10 fully armed cops with only his fists and a glass door he is handcuffed to, but it makes me wonder why they just didn't bring back Karl Urban? He was a pretty cool character and Karl Urban has been gaining more and more recognition lately. The only thing I have seen Hun Lee in was G.I. Joe: Retaliation and I personally wouldn't want to be remembered for that dreck. But regardless, he ended up growing on me by the end and was a ton of fun to watch. Anthony Hopkins played the main villain and he was a much needed improvement over Richard Dreyfuss from the first film. Hopkins is able to balance likable and sinister very well. I guess that happens when you played the world's most famous cannibal for three different films.

The only problem I had with the film was that it wasn't as surprising as the first one. When I saw the first Red, I was surprised at how different of an action comedy it was. When watching Red 2, it didn't really "shock" me as much because I kind of knew what to expect and what steps the story would follow. Yet I can't really fault the film for that.

Final Report: Even though it didn't feel as fresh and surprising as the first, Red 2 still has enough slick dialogue, cool car chases and enough John Malkovich to satisfy any action comedy fan. It is definitely worth renting.

Rant: A sequel to It's A Wonderful Life. It's happening. I'M DEAD SERIOUS.

When I came home from school today I did what I always do: Make a snack and check the new stories one the front page of IMDb. When I read this headline, a part of me died inside.

'It's A Wonderful Life' Sequel in the Works

It is official. The time has come. Hollywood really has run out of ideas.

I mean really, why? Just... WHY?

First off: Why on earth would you make a sequel to a movie that will be nearly 70 years old by the time of the sequel's release? What is the point?

If the article said that a remake of It's A Wonderful Life was in the works, I wouldn't be so angry. I could understand a remake over a sequel because It's A Wonderful Life is a great movie with a wonderful story that should be told to newer, younger generations. That would make some legitimate sense. But instead, a sequel that NOBODY ASKED FOR is being made.

Secondly: Who actually wants to see what happens next in the story? More importantly, what else is there to tell? The original film ended on such a satisfying and heartwarming note that every single subplot was wrapped up nicely by the time the credits rolled. There is nothing left to go off of!

Thirdly: I heard a rumor that a sequel to It's A Wonderful Life was an idea floating around during the 1980's. The sequel would have brought back the cast of the original, including Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed and Frank Capra would have returned as director. That would have been interesting. It might a stunk, but we would have been more positive about it because the cast and crew of the original would have returned to put some effort into it. But here, they are pulling an Amazing Spiderman on us:
Making the exact same movie with a completely different cast and crew that won't be as good as the original. No matter how hard they try. And for only one reason and one reason alone: Money.

According to the article the sequel will be called, It's A Wonderful Life: The Rest of the Story. The plot is said to revolve around Karolyn Grimes who played George Bailey’s daughter “Zuzu” in the original.  She is set to return for the sequel as an angel who shows Bailey’s unlikeable grandson (also named George Bailey) how much better off the world would have been had he never been born.

That is the exact plot of the original!!! If they are honestly going off of the exact plot of the original only with different characters, WHY DON'T THEY JUST REMAKE IT?!?!?!?!?!?! That would at least make more sense! People would still be angry that Hollywood would be tampering with one of the best movies of all time but it wouldn't be as brainless of a move than this!

I can already see it now:
It's A Wonderful Life 2: Life is No Longer Wonderful.
Starring Channing Tatum and Kristen Stewart
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

The more I talk about it the higher my blood pressure gets. Hopefully the project will get scrapped and the film will get a direct to DVD release. Let's hope for the best.

Movie Review #70: Man of Steel (2013)

I have to say, this is the only movie I know of that has a fight take place inside of an Ihop. What other movie can hold the title of "Coolest Fight in an Ihop." I would like to see a Teen Choice Award for that!

I am finally reviewing Man of Steel, the one summer blockbuster I was excited to see but didn't end up seeing on the big screen. I decided to put of seeing this because I was dismayed by the critics (for a first) and decided to wait and rent it. And now that it has made itself available to the screens of the general public, I finally got to see the blockbuster with the most mixed reviews.

And how was it? For once the critics were right. This really is a mixed bag. Don't get me wrong, I ended up really liking the movie, but as a movie reviewer, there are problems with it and a few personal issues I had with it that I couldn't ignore.

When the trailer was first released it showed a quieter, more emotional side to our protagonist with flashbacks to him as a child.
That would have been a very interesting take on Superman because the previous films didn't really focus on his life trying to fit in. It also would have been a different direction for Zack Snyder, who's filmography consists of only films that are style-over-substance. But the later trailers ended up being more accurate to the end product : A special effects heavy, relentless disaster movie. And I am fine with that to an extent. The entire second half of the movie is full-on armageddon. There is so much belligerent carnage, mayhem and destruction in this movie that the finales to The Avengers and Transformers: Dark of the Moon combined look like mere child's play compared to this! And while it could have been 10-15 minutes shorter, it was so cool! The visual effects were unlike anything I had ever seen in a comic book movie before. The sheer grandness of the action felt larger than life. It really was super.

Some of the biggest complaints with Superman Returns is that there was too much emotion and not enough action and the biggest complaints with Man of Steel is that there wasn't enough emotion and too much action. Is there no middle ground with Superman movies?
But I do have to agree with those statements. The movie did lack the emotion and drama that made Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy so memorable. The only scene that I honestly felt a bit of emotion in was when Pa Kent died. But even that wasn't much.

The movie also lacked the lighthearted, hopeful tone and humor of the lore and the five previous films. Even Superman Returns, which for the most part is a very somber movie, had more lighthearted, uplifting, feel-good moments than Man of Steel. There are very few jokes in the film and when a moment of humor appears, it takes you out of the moment for a second.

Henry Cavil was pretty good as Superman. He was pretty likable and definitely has the looks and physique for the role. Amy Adams of course was great as Lois Lane. It will be a rare day when I say that Amy Adams is the weak link in the cast of a movie. I really enjoyed the addition of Russell Crowe as Jor-El. The scenes of him on Krypton were great. He also appears in a spirit form of sorts and gives advice and help to both Lois and Kal. He also had a couple good scenes with Michael Shannon as Zod. Which is one of the parts of the film that I think could have been better.

General Zod is one of the most famous villains in all of comic book lore but Michael Shannon's performance as him wasn't as memorable as it could have been or how I wanted it to be. I'm not saying Michael Shannon is a bad actor. Far from it! It just came off as a bit too cold and stoic for me. Although he does have a couple very entertaining freak out moments. I also enjoyed the scene where his message to the world was broadcasted over every television. It kind of reminded me of the scenes in Iron Man 3 when the Mandarin hijacked the airwaves. The way the message was delivered seemed like something a real terrorist would do. It felt gritty, creepy, invasive, wrong and I loved it.

Without spoiling anything, The way the final battle ended shocked me. Even though it probably infuriated some fans, I appreciated the direction the film went in. It cemented the fact that this version of Superman no longer fights for truth, justice and the American way. Surprising, but very effective.

Final Report:  Man of Steel lacks emotion and humor, but the grand spectacle of the action sequences and visual effects are more than enough eye candy to feast upon. And for me, that is a good enough for me to add it to my movie collection.

Movie Review #69: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Thor: The Dark World was one of my most anticipated movies of 2013 and I was fortunate enough to catch an advanced screening of the film late last night. And since I had never been to an early showing of a movie before I was even more excited than I normally would have been!

Thor: The Dark World begins with a flashback thousands of years ago when Asgard was at war with a race of dark elves lead by an elf named Malekith. He wants a weapon called the Aether to take over the universe and send it into darkness. He ends up losing the battle and the Aether is hidden away but for reasons I will not say, he finds the location of the Aether and plans his revenge. It is now up to Thor and even some help from Loki to save the universe.

On the drive home from the theater, I was having a very tough time think about if I liked Thor: The Dark World more than Thor. And truth be told, I still don't know which one I liked more!

Both films had their flaws, but they were still very enjoyable and just a ton of fun. Although there are some evident differences in the two films. While the first Thor was more of a story about redemption and honor, Thor: The Dark World didn't have an underlying message like its predecessor. Which might be good news for people who didn't care for the message and wanted more action. But for me, the message was what made Thor stand out among the other Marvel movies. But then again, I think that Thor: The Dark World was a more well made movie on a technological standpoint. The visuals look fantastic. We finally get to see what Asgard looks like which was something we wanted to see in the first film. Malekith's make-up looks great. I definitely see an Oscar nomination for best make-up in the future for this film. The movie is also very well directed to which I have give credit to Alan Taylor. The final battle was a ton of fun. It involved Thor and Malekith popping from dimension to dimension and the best way I can describe it is that it felt like playing Portal! It really did and it was so much fun.

As usual, the actors are all great. The chemistry between Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston really shines here. There is a scene where Thor is telling Loki his plan that had my theater erupting with laughter. In that scene there is a cameo that rivals Hugh Jackman's cameo in X-Men First Class in greatness. It was hilarious. One character I would have liked to have fewer lines was Kat Dennings character. At times she earned a good laugh but quite often her scenes felt rather awkward and out of place. At least she looked cute.

But the villain Malekith,  was pretty weak. It's a shame because the character looks and sounds super cool and he's played by Christopher Eccleston! The Ninth Doctor! How could I not like him? Sadly, he didn't have much to do and I felt he was just there to be the villain and nothing more. He's kind of like Nero from Star Trek. Both were played by good actors I like but they were wasted. Probably for more screen time for Loki.

Final Report: For me, Thor: The Dark World is just as good as its predecessor. Great action, humor, directing and characters make for a time at the movies that is definitely worth the price of admission.

Movie Review #68: The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Am I the only one who wonders why The Nightmare Before Christmas is always called Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas when in fact it was Henry Selick who directed, not Burton. Why doesn't Henry Selick get the recognition he deserves? That's just something that confused me.

In The Nightmare Before Christmas, Jack Skellington, The Pumpkin King of Halloween Town has grown tired of the same routine and he wants something different. After walking through the woods contemplating life, he discovers a magical doorway into Christmas Town. It is there he has an epiphany: Why can't the citizens of Halloween Town celebrate Christmas? So the townspeople decide to take matters into their own hands. Whether that is a good thing or not.

The one element that makes Nightmare stand out above all the other stop-motion films is Danny Elfman's masterful score and songs. If the movie wasn't a musical, it would just be remembered as a creepy kids movie. The movie would be nothing without the music. All of the songs are memorable. The first three songs are my personal favorite and the visuals match the songs to a tee.

Considering the film is celebrating its 20th anniversary on this very day (I swear I didn't plan that) the animation holds up incredibly well. The animation is astonishing. One of my personal favorite scenes is during Jack's Lament when he walks up the hill and the moon shines causing him to look like a silhouette. I'm not sure why I enjoy that scene so much. Maybe because it is the most iconic scene from the whole film. Or maybe it was a combination of the animation, the music and the environment.
It was great re-watching this in high definition because the colors have never looked more vibrant and the townspeople have never seemed creepier. Which leads me to the characters.

With a film as visually and musically memorable as The Nightmare Before Christmas, you would think that the characters would be very memorable, right? Sadly, the character that I really remembered is Jack Skellington because he was the main character and easily the most likable and relatable. The only reason some of the other characters are remembered is because of the nightmares they gave us as children (or maybe I only felt that way). Aside from scaring us as kids, the townspeople are very bland and boring. Especially the character of Sally. She is given little development or background whatsoever and yet we have to root for her as the protagonist and the love interest when she is a very boring character. The character of Oogie Boogie is pretty awesome though. The voice and design is super cool. I still can't get The Boogie Song out of my head.

Regardless of how bland some characters might be personality wise, they are made up with great character designs. The premise is completely different from anything we have ever seen before. It just blisters with originality and I love it.

Final Report: The Nightmare Before Christmas is an imaginatively original film with stop-motion animation and a awesome musical score that cements the reason why Danny Elfman is my favorite composer. It's a true classic.

Movie Review #67: After Earth (2013)

Yes this doesn't fit in with the halloween theme but there weren't any horror movies at Redbox that peaked my interest so this will have to do for now.

In After Earth, Will Smith and his son in real life Jaden Smith and their ship crashes on a now abandoned earth. When Will Smith gets injured, it is up to Jaden Smith to trek through the wild to find a distress beacon to call for help.

Will Smith plays a legendary military general named Cypher Rage (yes that is his real name) who has undergone a process called "ghosting". That means that he can no longer feel any fear. This makes him very cold and distant with his son Kitai Rage played by Jaden Smith. And yes that is his real name.

What is good about this movie: It has its elements of originality. The technology and weaponry that they use in the film are actually pretty cool. The main weapon used is a double edged metal blade that looks like a medieval version of Darth Maul's lightsaber and that is really cool. The premise is also original and some of the creatures they encounter have their elements of originality. And this could have been a much better film if it were in the hands of a different writer, director and had two different lead actors.

I like Will Smith. He's an incredibly likable guy, but in this he had all of his charisma sucked out of him. His character is so boringI'm not even sure if he cracked a smile in the entire movie. They also pull a complete bait and switch advertising Will Smith as the lead because for the entire movie he doesn't leave the ship and the film focuses on Jaden Smith. Yet Jaden Smith isn't any more interesting to watch than Will Smith is! He either comes off as too whiny or too angry. But one thing he always come off as: A bad actor. Okay, he might not be that bad of an actor but I don't think that he has enough acting chops to carry an entire 90 minute movie. He needs to start out small and when he has gotten better then he should move on to roles like this.

Aside from the sub-par acting, the film also suffers from sub-par directing. If this was in the hands of someone like Duncan Jones, Joe Johnston or Joseph Kosinski it would have been much better. Even if you don't like the directors I listed, you have to admit that their directorial style would have been a much better fit for the film than Shyamalan. M. Night's directing style is dialogue and story based that doesn't require many special effects if any. He needs to go back to making films like Unbreakable or The Village that don't rely on visuals but story and suspense unlike After Earth that had decent visuals but no suspense whatsoever. The closest thing to suspense we get is a scene where Jaden Smith is flying in a flying squirrel suit and is being chased by a giant bird. That scene was actually pretty cool.

Final Report: After Earth has an original story and some neat elements, but its boring pace, sub-par acting, underwhelming action and evident lack of fun or joy makes this a one of my least favorite movies of the year. I just hope M. Night Shyamalan goes on to making movies that he used to make.