The Perks of Being a Wallflower

The Perks of Being a Wallflower written and directed by Stephen Chbosky, starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller.

It's so refreshing to watch a movie where the director and writer - Stephen Chbosky - had faith in his story and in the characters he created.  He had so much faith in the story and characters he didn't even bother with insane, over-the-top actions sequences, abrupt changes in tone or pacing purely for dramatic purposes, quirky or gimmicky camera angles or shots, nor did the characters ever once break from the characteristics already established throughout the movie.  This movie just told a story, a story about people and made you care about them and in this day and ago where Hollywood is obsessed with big budget movies where action and everything else replaces characterization.  It was really refreshing to watch this movie.  And in case you haven't figured it out yet, this movie was good and worth your time to see.

There's absolutely nothing complicated about this movie.  It's a simple story about a teenager's freshman year in high school and the journey it takes for him to fit in and find friends.  That's it, that's the whole story, but Chbosky makes you care about the main character and the friends he finds along the way.  Don't get me wrong there are complicated things about this movie, but those complications arise from the honest relationships that arise around these friends, the personalities and interests they have, as any complications would happen.  They come about in some real ways that don't, ever, for once feel gimmicky or fake.

Chbosky actually does something in this movie that a lot of writers in Hollywood try to do but fail miserably at, and that's actually use the interests of the characters to actually progress them as individuals.  These characters don't just sit around for one scenes and talk about music to show how intelligent the writer of the movie is - as many writers in Hollywood seem to do.  They just use one scene to talk about movies, books, or music that they seem to think shows some depth of the characters in the movie.  When in actuality if they don't follow up those scenes with the characters talking more about their interests in movies, books, or music - you know like real people do in real like talk about their interests - then the writer totally wastes whatever in depth characterization they are trying to convey.  Chbosky uses the music interests of his characters throughout the movie and doesn't just use it as gimmick to show how intelligent he is.  He uses it as a true writer uses it and that is to explore his characters, as music is not only their interest, but also an extension of who they are.  I thank him all the more for doing it. 

To sum up, this is a simple movie with multiple complications abounding, but don't let that scare you, simplicity is the overall blanket tucking this movie to bed.  The direction is simple and effective.  I still can't believe this is Chbosky's first directed movie, because he did an assured job of communicating the story line without falling into the trap of being gimmicky.  He let the story and characters play out like a seasoned director of the old days, of which there are a very short supply directing movies now-a-days.  The actors and actresses he's assembled served the story well, as they breathed life in the characters he gave them and really fleshed them out.  All in all you need to see this movie because it was that good when.  You need to see it just to compare it to the over the top, over budget, action movies that Hollywood seems intent to keep making, and see what a real movie can be that doesn't rely on special effects or over blown action, but instead focuses on storyline and characters.  This movie is the exact opposite of those Hollywood movies we get now-a-days and it's all the better for it, as it heralds back to much better day in Hollywood.   

Battle Royale

Battle Royale. 

Yes this is a foreign movie and yes it is subtitled in Japanese. 

Not the best film I've seen but clearly an interesting one considering the subject matter and subtext of the movie as it comments on, in a metaphorical sense, the Japanese treatment of their children in school at least this is a lot of things I've read about it. This is also movie that laid a lot ground work for Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games and it's much more violent than that movie and more along the lines of the violence in the book. 

The one major difference between this movie and The Hunger Games (the movie and book) is that the characters in The Hunger Games you get know and thus really care about them as the "games" begin for them. But in Battle Royale there is no getting to know the characters at all which really hurts the over all movie because as the kids start to die I had no feeling or empathy for them. They were just 2-D characters with a three day life span.   You've got to make me care about people if you want me to fully invest into what you're doing.  It's not like there wasn't plenty of time between the killings to invest into some characterization, doing that would have made the circumstances of what happens later have more effect.

If your into to watching controversial movies and banned movies (I am) then this will be a movie worth checking out. I still would like to know how that one kid in the movie never ran out of bullets for his Uzi?  Ever time he was on screen he spraying everything known to man with bullets yet his gun never seemed to run out bullets, ever.  Little things that like that can really hurt a movie trying to say something because it just doesn't make sense for a gun to be like that. 

Valkyrie

Valkyrie directed by Bryan Singer, starring Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp, and Eddie Izzard.

This was a weird movie to watch.  It was entertaining but not really that great.  It was highly watchable, not just because of the actors involved in the production, but also Singer brings a visual style that is slick and glossy.  This movie looks awesome.  But after saying all of that, there just seems to be something missing from this movie to make it that much better.  I don't know what that something is, but it is definitely missing.

The movie is about a group of German military people who are trying to kill Hitler, and this movie is about their last attempt to kill him.  The movie unwisely tries to focus on this attempted assassination attempt, as it tries to wring every once of tension and suspense from this situation.  That is one major flaw, because there no tension here, I already know these Germans don't assassinate Hitler, so no matter how much the filmmakers want there to be tension, there can never be that much tension.  I already know the outcome.

I personally think the movie should have focused more on the people in the movie.  Make me care about the people involved, then whatever happens will affect me more, because I've become emotionally invested in the characters.  Argo did this much better and was thus able to make the tension and suspense work better.  They made me care about Ben Affleck's characters even though I didn't know a great deal about him, I knew enough to care about him and what he was doing.  What amazes about not focusing on the people in the movie is that there is some great actors in this movie and to not have them dive into their characters and flesh them out for the audience, is a great crime.  Because as it stands, right now, they are one of the reasons this movie is so watchable.  Virtually every frame of this movie has at least on of them in it, even one of them is better than a movie full Hollywood wannabe-up-and-coming stars that they keep force feeding down the public's throat.  Imagine if they would have been given more room to breath life into these characters?  I think this movie could have that much better.

For a Tom Cruise starring movie, this is one of his most un-Cruiser movies that he's ever done.  There's no scene of him running.  There's no scene of him barring his hairless chest.  In fact he plays the whole movie as a disfigured character with a patch over his missing eye, his right arm blow off and only two remaining fingers on his left hand.  In all actuality he does a good job of acting and that's with the high caliber of actors that are surrounding him in virtually ever scene this movie.

All in all it wasn't a bad night of watching a movie, but it wasn't the best night.  If you're looking for an entertaining movie to pass the time, you could do much worse than this movie, but don't forget there are also better movies than this one out there.

2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey directed by Stanley Kubrick. 

I've been in a Kubrick mood the last few weeks but hadn't had time to watch one of his movies, until tonight. For those of you who don't know, Stanley Kubrick is my favorite director of all time and in my opinion the best director of all time-hands down, no one even compares and this movie ranks number 2 on my list of The Top 10 Best Movies of all Time (so yah I am going to be a little bias when writing this). 

2001 is the best sci-fi movie ever made. There can be no comparison.  Because so many sci-fi movies and movies in general have used images, themes, camera shots, production design, color schemes, audible sound and music from this movie that its influence (I wager) can be seen in about 90% of the films out there. Granted I haven't actually calculated or tested that theory but I'm confident enough that it's right and would stand up if scrutinized. 

I haven't seen a Kubrick film in a long time and I haven't seen 2001 in an even longer time, but I've got to say his movies only get better as time moves on, especially when compared to most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood today. Even though I hadn't seen this movie in a long time (years in fact) I still found myself remembering how one scene cut to another scene, where music ended to set up the other scene such is the power of Kubrick, to stamp his work of art onto my mind (yes I am gushing a bit). And a work of art this movie is. It's like watching a moving painting, such is the power of the visuals on display. 

Another reason I wanted to watch this movie was that the new movie Cloud Atlas was coming out this weekend, yet another pretentious, want to be philosophical laden, empty filled, mumbo jumbo movie from the Wachowski brothers (granted I haven't seen it and am prejudging this movie but based on their other films the pretensions this movie is going to aspire to, while giving no answers, is going to be great). I wanted to see a movie that asked some tough questions, that made me think yet wasn't as empty on the answers department. 

 I forgot how good this movie was. Kubrick's way of letting the movies visuals tell the story, but yet net letting the special effects or visuals get in the way of the story is truly remarkable. It's one of the few movies out there were the special effects are woven into the movie in such a way where they function with the storyline and never let the storyline be a slave to them.  And I can name countless movies where this is the opposite and so few where they are woven together in a nice marriage. And what special effects they are as they have more than stood the test of time. How many effects heavy movies can that be said about? Even today they are better than the majority of movies using computer effects and all Kubrick used was models and full scale sets to capture the space scenes. 

Another bold move Kubrick used, that hasn't been repeated a lot since his movie, was he set the movie in three different time periods and used an inanimate object as the main character to ground each time period. What a character the monolith becomes, visually at least, it's an imposing, striking image that plants itself inside the mind when seen, such is the power of the image. I won't delve into the phallic symbolism represented by it either. Even though the monolith doesn't speak Kubrick uses a sort of off kilter chanting as its voice, which works in an eerie, spiritual, church sort of way that when the chanting is heard the viewer knows the monolith is about to do something. 

Another bold movie Kubrick made was making the computer HAL have more feeling, emotion and characterization than the humans in the movie, which only supports the philosophizing that humans haven't evolved much from the Dawn of Man sequence as apes. They are still ruled by their lack of emotions or cared away with their barbarian lusts, there is no in between, no humanity. 

Never before has the vastness of space been presented in such wondrous and lonely isolation as in 2001 and sometimes even in the same scene. I could go on and on writing about this movie but after looking up and seeing how much I've written so far, I think it's about time to end this one.

Star Trek (2009)

Star Trek (2009) directed by J. J. Abrams staring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, and Zoe Saldana.

First of all there are two movie franchises that I think owe their very existence to Christopher Nolan and his Batman Begins: one is Casino Royale and the other is this movie. Nolan laid the ground work for how you reboot a stale, old story, and make it new and refreshing and his way is that you focus on characters, then build the story line around them.  Because without interesting characters, the movie will be reduced to the churned out assembly line movies Hollywood continues to produce. 

Abrams takes everything from the original Star Trek and shakes it up with the things that will make it better.  The end result is a very good action/sci-fi movie that is focused on characters, namely Kirk and Spock, as the beginning of the movie give a solid foundation of the pasts of these that follows them, and sticks in the  mind of the viewer, throughout the movie. This focus on characters has to be looked at because in not only sci-fi movies, but also sci-fi books, there is way too much attention focused on the setting, technology, space, or alienness of the story that the characters get lost in everything going on. This is not how to tell a good story.  The characters must be focused on because they are who the viewer is going to see the story through.  If they aren't interesting or believable how is what's happening around them going to interest or be believable to the viewer?  Abrams bravely focuses on the characters in this movie so much so that all the glossy (and it really is glossy), slick (and it really is slick), and awesome (and it really is awesome) technology becomes a side note as the movie bounces along. 

 I thought the opening scene really set the new shift of focus through making the audience believe THE Kirk was there (being played by an extremely good Chris Hemsworth [Thor] who makes a lot of the short scene he's given, so much so that his presence is felt throughout the movie, a feat that a lesser actor would have ruined) only to find out that it's Kirk's dad and the REAL Kirk is being born as his dad sacrifices himself to save lives. The birth scene really seems to emphasize that Abrams himself is birthing something new with this Star Trek amid the ruins left from the old Trek. 

This new shift to character over technology only becomes more apparent as the movie focuses its attention to the parallel lives Kirk and Spock as they grow from kids to adults.  This done through some clever editing. Abrams really makes these characters breath with life, he gives the viewer something to ground these two characters together: rebellion.  Because rebellion is the main thread through the scenes, both as kids and adults, so that later on when they meet we know they have a common ground to meet at. That rebellion also gives the viewer a common place to meet and understand the characters, because what viewer hasn't experienced a little rebellion in their lives. 

Another thing that sets Abrams characters apart from the original Trek is fact that when these characters get into a fight they still have cuts, bruises and blood on them which is a far cry pristine clean uniforms of Rodenberry's Trek who seemed constantly bathed in soap every second.

Casino Royale

Casino Royal directed by Martin Campbell staring Daniel Craig, the Dame Judi Dench, and Eva Green. 

Best Bond movie?  Most definitely. 

Best Bond? 

Daniel Craig is the most ruthless, fearless, cold hearted bastard of a Bond ever. He's everything a 007 would be as a trained assassin and killer. Yes, he's the best Bond and he would kill any of the other Bonds in a second for even thinking otherwise. 

This is how you do a good action movie, with a good story line that doesn't get bogged down with insane megalomaniacs trying to take over the world, overblown action sequences that have no heart, or out of touch gadgets that have their foundation in a fantasy novel and not reality. This Bond movie gets everything right as it tears down all the structures of the old Bond movies and rebuilds Bond for a new generation.  And builds a better mouse trap while it's at it. 

If there's one movie that this Bond movie should thank it's Matt Damon's Bourne Identity movie because it uses a lot of the heart and soul of that movie to inject this new Bond with life. Not that that's a bad thing, because it isn't at all. I just wanted give respect the spy who helped Bond find his inner bad ass spy. 

Where to begin? I'll start with the theme song because this theme song sets the stage for every reinvention of Bond that is to come in the movie. Forget having a woman sing the theme.  They get a man to open the Bond movie. What better way to establish the changes that are about to come. And let me tell you Chris Cornell nails and sells this theme each second he's singing. Another indication we are going to get a different Bond this around is that the title of the movie is never once uttered in the song.  Sacrilege, a lot of Bond fans might say.  I say it's just the changing of the guard.  It became my favorite Bond theme when I first heard it and every time since, and I really liked the Goldfinger theme song.  And before this movie came out Goldfinger was my favorite Bond movie and Sean Connery was my favorite Bond.  So, don't say I don't have an open mind.  

I also liked how they opened the movie in black and white, adding a grittiness to Bond that was honestly missing in every Bond movie since this one. Subsequently the fight scene that follows between Bond and informant in the bathroom is a scene of gritty, brutal beauty as it shows the intimacy and time it takes to kill a man that's something never to be taken lightly or with witty comebacks. Killing is hard and destructive as this scene shows.  The destruction they weave in the bathroom only hints at the destruction that Bonds going to go through in his professional and personal life and the scars both will leave in the wake as the movie goes on. Craig really seems to revel in this fight scene as it happens, proving the time and toughness it takes to kill a man is not easy as the sweat and blood on his faces shows. That's another thing that separates this Bond from those that came before, this Bond bleeds, get cut, and sweats like a real destructible man, giving weight and tension to the fight scenes making them not feel as choreographed as they really are but more improvised. 

As much as the fight scenes are improved in this Bond it's the quiet acting scenes that are the real winners of this movie. Every time Craig and Dench are on screen together it's like they're putting on a class on how to act. They bring such life and passion to their roles. I will tell you this, I would work for Judi Dench in a heart beat. I really like her role as M. Then the movie really starts to boil when Eva Green finally makes her appearance and let me tell you she's the sexiest, smartest Bond girl ever, hand down. She can say more with her eyes and eye brows than half the woman in Hollywood. Her first scene with Craig (and really every scene with Craig) clicks on that train as her and him spar with words and observations of each other with neither winning as the scene ends.  Only the viewers really win as we behold finally a woman to match this super spy, brutal killer (as the scenes before have showed us) Bond. One of the best visual scenes of them in the movie involves no dialogue and them sitting in the shower fully clothed (again this breaks every mold from the previous Bond movies) as he comforts her after she witnessed/partook of him killing (doing his job). I really liked the way his shirt started to soak through with the water as the scene progressed symbolizing the tenderness and emotion that was starting to soak through his hard armor. The biggest symbolic set piece of all is the last one staged in the old building crumbling into the water help up only by flotation devices. This old building represents all the old structures that held up Bond and as it crumbles into the water that represents the old Bond crumbling into the drowned as the new Bond is all that survives. I didn't see it this way the first time I watched this movie, but this time I did and most likely I'm reading too much into it. 

What a way to end the movie with him simply saying his moniker line to the man who hand in a Veper's death, "Bond, James Bond."

Grave Mercy

Grave Mercy by Robin LaFevers. 

This book was recommended to me by someone I know, so I read the synopsis of it and was intrigued, which then saw me going to the library to get it.  

It wasn't a bad read, but the only thing hindering this book from being really good was that for the subject matter it was written for the youth market. Killing people is the main subject of this book as it deals with a convent that trains girls to be assassins so you can see where I was intrigued, because this wasn't a subject that is normally dealt with in youth fiction. 

The opening scene promised a lot with its grim realistic treatment of girls in that time period and it was a bold move by the LaFevers to have an opening this in your face without being exploitative but then the rest of the book dovetailed into the typical teen romance novel with little surprises abounding. Despite the cliche ridden story I found myself in I still found myself liking the world LaFevers had created. But like I said before if this book had been written for adults I think the serious subject matter it deals will could have been treated in much more concrete way with more adult laced scenes that I think would have helped enhance the story immersed the reader better into the world. I've also got to say I'm sick of all this youth fiction being written in the first person, seeing all the first person narration makes me respect J. K. Rowling all the more for what she did with Harry Potter. She had his story connect to the reader with third person narration instead of being forced into the tell all world of first person narration where there is very little show and a world of tell. But all of this being said I will be reading the sequel to this book when it comes out.

Lockout

Lockout directed by James Mather and Stephen St. Leger, staring Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace and that one guy who always plays a Russian when the script requires a Russian and he does a really good job. 

This movie is everything as advertised, only a lot funnier than advertised. It's not a great movie at all, but it's highly entertaining and and at an hour and thirty minutes, paced well with no added filler scenes. This is a movie that knows what it is and doesn't try to be something it's not.  Guy Pearce is the best thing in this movie, his devil-may-care attitude, quick one liners and comebacks are flat out funny.  They had me laughing out loud plenty of times as he stayed true to that type of characters throughout the movie, even in scenes where you thought he might break character. When he's not on screen the movie stalls, but I think the director and screenplay writer knew this, so there's not too many scenes where Pearce's character isn't there. 

Basically this movie is a remake of the old John Carpenter movie Escape from New York staring Kurt Russell, so if you've seen that movie you'll know what you're in for in this movie. Lockout is just not R rated as Escape was, it's PG-13 nor is it filled with tension or as gritty as Escape was.  Where as Escape was a low budget nicely paced action/thriller/sci-fi movie, Lockout is medium budget action/sci-fi movie. If you're looking for a good entertaining that's funny and not to long, this is the movie for you.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America: The First Avenger directed by Joe Johnston staring Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones and Hugo Weaving. 

Family movie night, time to watch the new "Star Wars" for my kids generation and I'm really glad these movies are so much better than the utter trash Lucas passed off as Star Wars prequels (Revenge of the Sith not included in that small rant). I'm still amazed that Marvel got these movies made and made so well, watching them is like watching building blocks being stacked upon each other, building and building until the ultimate popcorn movie The Avengers was released.  And everything fits together remarkably well. I've never seen anything made from and by a corporation that is produced this well and this good, normally all Hollywood produced movies are crap.  They seem more inclined to figure out the line of toys, marketing campaign, and merchandising than, you know, actual story line and characters. 

A couple of things about this movie that I really liked. The pacing moves the story line along with some good energy, but never lets the movie feel slowed down during any non action scenes. That is something to credit the director and screenplay writer. I really like how the action scenes don't get bogged down with trying to match the action scenes of modern day Hollywood instead these action scenes stay firmly grounded in that time period while they don't get overblown with crazy John Woo stunt works. Another thing Johnston does well here is actually direct the action scenes so the viewer can see what is going on.  No shaky camera here, instead Johnston relies on what is called setting a scene and shot up that lets the audience know what is going on. It's a truly remarkable, ground breaking idea that I hope catches on in Hollywood. 

Ultimately the best thing that sells this movie is the acting. Much like Robert Downy Jr and Chris Hemsworth sold Iron Man and Thor on their charisma, so does Chris Evans fully embody Captain America and, as pre-Captain America, Steve Rodgers. This should come as no surprise to anyone though because he did the same thing in Fantastic Four 1and 2, virtually stealing every scene he was in as Johny Storm (the Human Torch), as he made a truly bad movie somewhat likeable because he was in it. It's a good thing Captain America gives him more to work with because it really helps to show how good an actor he is and not just a pretty boy face. 

Early scenes in the movie work well as they let Evans build the character of Steve Rodgers before he gets transformed into Captain America. There's not a lot of wasted scenes here as they introduce his friend Bucky and set up a bunch of shots that will later be contrasted with the Captain America character. 

Who but Tommy Lee Jones could play a high ranking military figure? One of his best scenes in where he smiles at the girl during a movie and as my wife pointed out how many times do you really get to see Tommy Lee Jones smile?. Which is true when I thought about it and his smile was acted with great depth (or at least I thought so) than a lot of actors act in two hour movies. I also liked how the stock woman character grew on me as I watched it this time around. She was was kind of in-your-face during her first few scenes, but as the movie progressed I felt her character get better even though she was still an in-your-face type of character, that's some good acting and screenplay writing.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer

Perfume: the Story of a Murderer directed by Tom Tykwer. 

 I really don't know where to begin with this movie. A friend of mine recommended it to me a few years ago and I finally found it on Amazon Prime so I gave it a watch. 

This is a very odd film, but also one of the most original movies I've seen in a long time. It was 2 and half hour long, but didn't for a second feel that length of time.  The pace, as well as the oddness, of it kept everything moving along at a good health pace. 

But all of that said this is a movie about a serial killer and perfume. Yes, I know it sounds odd and that there is no way it could be good, but I'm telling you it all works together in the movie everything works with the story line nothing hinders or bogs the story down. It's directed by a guy named Tom Tykwer who directed a movie called Run Lola, Run. From that movie I would have never guessed a movie this good would come from him and be as strikingly different in tone and direction than Run, Lola, Run (take note Tarentino, the Warchowsky brothers/sisters?). 

This movie's production alone is worth watching the movie for. The sets of a past France are striking and the dirtiness of the lower class is vividly done. Tykwer's use of color, dark and drab for the city, while the country scenes use every color from a painter's palate to bring the country alive, is exactly how to use color in a movie. His use of jump cuts and quick editing only enhances the story line rather that bog it down with needless and pointless non-directing. These types of cuts and editing are only used when emphasizing the sense of smell to the main character so the quick cuts and editing show everything main character smells at that moment, which as one can imagine would be a barrage of sensory input.

It's hard to believe this movie came from the barren waste of Hollywood, because it doesn't seem like anything original comes from there anymore but this movie is one of the most original movies I've seen in a long time. It's also amazing how a movie can convey the sense of smell through a purely visual medium.  There were countless times I wanted to smell what the main character was smelling, because from a visual stand point it looked so very a pealing that I got a visual taste of what he was smelling, that is a good director. The ending is faithful as well as a head scratcher of an ending that will leave you thinking about the movie and the deeper meaning there in. It's one of the few movies that I applaud this kind of an ending, because honestly there wasn't too many places for as good of a resolution as this movie gives.

Night Passage

Jesse Stone: Night Passage staring Tom Selleck. 

This is a series of made for TV movies based on the literary character Jesse Stone and adapted from the book series written by Robert B. Baker.  I found them on Netflix a few months ago and have been doing my best to watch them since I saw the first episode. Seeing as how I didn't have much to do over the last two nights in the hospital with my new born girl these movies provided a good way to pass the time in the confining hospital room. 

There's nothing overly complicated about this series but I've got to admit the simplicity of this series is refreshing as is the conservative character Jesse Stone himself. Basically this is a cop show with Tom Selleck as Jesse Stone as he solves the daily mystery of this episode. Then each episode also explores the small town of Paradise and the cast of characters around Jesse Stone. The cool thing about this series is that it has continuity: things that happen in one episode effect the other episodes and are commented on in other episodes.  I really like that because it shows me some attention to detail is being considered when these shows are made.  This also shows me that people care about the show to continue with the continuity of it.  But this series isn't so steeped in continuity that you have to watch them in chronological order. I watched them in the order of release date and this episode actually the "origin" episode was made second. 

This episode is where Jesse Stone first comes to Paradise and takes the job as Chief of police of the town and the small mystery that evolves from it.  This town they've built around Jess Stone has a Stephen King kind of feel to it.  By that I mean, as a viewer, you really start to connect with people, architecture, and the over all setting of the show, much like Stephen King does a lot with his small towns in his books.  You get a real good feel for the small town setting, it basically becomes another character in the show, much like the town does in a King novel.  Another good about this show is that the characters stay true to themselves.  What I mean by this is that they won't dive out of character for dramatic or insane plot devices, no matter what - so far anyway - they remain completely true to themselves.  The screenwriters really know these characters and the actors/actresses who play these characters do a great job of creating fully fleshed out characters.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

Pirates Band of Misfits by Ardman Animations. 

I'm a big fan of Ardman Animations because of the Wallace and Gromit, and Chicken Run. I've never thought everything they've done have been perfect, but it's the little things in their movies and TV shows that I admire.  It's these little touched that keep me watching because the attention to detail is what makes them truly great. 

They don't necessarily have the greatest of story lines for their projects, but it's the characters they create that keep the story going. They are extremely character driven makers and realize this fact: if you create some interesting characters you can get away with a little less of something because that character will keep the audience interested. 

And Pirates Band of Misfits is populated with many interesting characters and it's fun to see these characters interact with each other and with the story as it progresses. My favorite character is the monkey who don't speak but uses cue cards to speak with (and what is it with Ardman and silent characters: see Gromit and the penguin from Wallace and Gromit).  Even though he doesn't talk, they really make him animated with those cards and funny when the those cards come out at times when you think they wouldn't. My favorite scene over all is when the pirates are gathering at the pirate cove and we're introduced to some of the baddest pirates in the world. Their introductions are great and make for some interesting characters who I wouldn't mind seeing a movie or short movies about. 

Also have fun spotting the many voice actors in this movie most of them are British with a few out of country voice, but none-the-less it's fun to spot them. Over all this was a funny movie with huge attention to detail and the kids had a good time. Well worth your investment of time and a good family movie.

Timeline

Timeline by Michael Crichton. 

Not his best book by a long shot but a solid entertaining read none-the-less if your looking for a good action type of book that involves some time travel. I actually wish this book had been longer and he had explored the characters a little more it would have made it a much more enjoyable read. But if you like Jurassic Park you'll like this book. 

When the main story line gets to the medieval ages the book really gets going as Crichton explores our preconceived ideas for that time period and let me tell you it gets good as the class divided society of that time clashes with our preconceived ideas of that time and our own social views. One of the best scenes in the book involves an archeological dig site as they dig up a modern piece of hardware that was buried centuries ago. The mind bending images and thought process of discovering something like that are explored in a genuine way. 

I also like the way Crichton writes believable scientists that for some reason Hollywood seems unable to even comprehend as they keep giving us Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist (which is very believable). As my brother and I have discussed countless times scientist will always act in a certain way and Crichton's scientists always seem to act in a truly believable way. 

This is not best time travel story I've read, The Door into Summer by Robert A. Heinlein still rules that roost, but it's entertaining and a good book to pass the time if you're looking for something fun to read.

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters directed by Tommy Wirkola, starring Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen, and that one guy who always plays a Russian, or German in just about every movie he's in.

I don't know what to really say about this movie.  I've been composing my thoughts for this review as I was watching the movie and since it's been over.  This is not by any means a complicated movie to review.  It's just an interesting movie to review, that's the one thing it's got going for it.  It is by no means a great movie, but it is highly entertaining.  And it does the one thing, the over-the-top, big budget, ultra popcorn, and, basically, every movie Bruckheimer's produced the last 10 years or so doesn't do: it's not overlong and doesn't try to be something more than an over-the-top, ultra popcorn movie.  This movie doesn't overstay it's welcome.  It basically blows in, blows up, and blows out in about an hour and half.  It doesn't waste time trying to be something it's not.  In fact there is no time wasted at all in this movie.  It knows exactly what it is and that is a popcorn, action movie.  It swims and baths in that knowledge like most popcorn movies seem to want to avoid.  Not this movie.  And let me tell you it's all the better for it.  That honesty is the driving force behind how good and entertaining this movie is.

I liked this movie.

It's that honesty of being what it was that made me like it all the more.  This movie kind of reminds me of the television show Hercules: The Legendary Journeys starring Kevin Sorbo.  It's got that same kind of cheek and off ball humor that Hercules managed to weave into every episode. It also has enough over-the-top action scenes, complete with all out gore on gore action, to help move everything along with great pace and fun.  While at the same time it had me laughing out loud at the total insanity of everything they were doing.  It was a lot like Van Helsing, only shorter and more focused. The only thing this movie didn't have that Van Helsing did have was a very hot Kate Beckinsale, she alone was worth watching Van Helsing for.  The thing I really liked about this movie was how the witches were portrayed.  They seemed to be like some kind of amped up zombies or vampire, only with magical powers and they came in all kinds of sizes and flavors.  Once all of the witches were on screen it was an even more highly entertaining movie than before as they had all kinds of colorful appearances, various hair styles, weird eye make-up, and just plain craziness woven into unjustified, intense detail.  But then again maybe it was justified because they were fun to watch when they all appeared on screen and ramped the zaniness of the movie up a few RPM's.  

The two actors playing Hansel and Gretel - Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton - did a competent job of portraying them with just the right amount of seriousness and silliness.  I could tell they knew they weren't in a serious film, or a Jerry Bruckhiemer film, they knew what kind of film they were in and they played it just right. Mixing in just the right ingredients of seriousness and silliness too make this movie all the more entertaining.  The one question I do have, "Is why did Gretel get the crap beat out of her in about every fight scene while Hansel pretty much remained untouched, or at least he didn't get beat up as much as she did?"  

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a sequel with the same amount of running time and insanity.  I think, then, the only thing to make it perfect would be a trilogy to cement everything together.

8 Mile

8 Mile directed by Curtis Hanson starring Eminem, Kim Basinger, Mekhi Phifer, and Brittany Murphy.

One of the things I need to mention right up front is that I don't listen to rap music and I don't really have a fondness for the repetitive beats that populate the majority of rap songs.  So, I come to this movie with an ingrained bias, therefore it was a surprise to me when I liked this movie and connected with the main character's storyline. 

In all honesty this movie shouldn't work or be as good as it turned out.  I know the one reason it's as good as it is, is because of the director Curtis Hanson.  Who brought a visual element and a pacing to the movie that added so much, helping it to become more than was there on the page.  My brother and I have this saying that basically goes, "There are no new stories being told.  It's all about how you tell the stories, that's what really matters."  8 Mile uses little pieces of Rocky - you know what I'm saying, the underdog versus the big dog story line - and Good Will Hunting - a genius living in the blue collar world of poverty, back breaking work, and trailer park estates.  It doesn't try and hide these facts, and it shouldn't, because these are parts of the world created here, so instead of hiding behind them Hanson just picks them up and carries them on his shoulder.  This movie is all the better for it.  Hanson uses the production of this movie - the sets, the on location shooting - to his full advantage.  They basically become another character, as they add a grittiness and some serious realism to the story being told, making everything more relate able  .  This realism helps the viewer to connect with the main character's plight, here played by Eminem, who isn't asked to carry the film, but is surrounded by enough other good actors that support him at every opportunity.

This is a universal storyline of self-discovery and self-confidence and is also a movie that explores a culture I don't know much about, namely rap music and rap.  The movie treats this subject of rap seriously and by doing this lets the viewer enter a world they don't have much knowledge about.  If it would have been treated as anything less than serious, then the overall story line wouldn't have connected as it does.  If the world itself isn't taken seriously, then why should I care about what I'm watching?  Hanson cares about this world that he's filming, and it shows in every frame, but more about that later.  This a world where words are weapons.  And poetry, yes I use that word because I've struggled a long time with calling rap poetry, but the bottom line is that yes it is a form a poetry.  In this world rap is poetry, and this poetry is the weapons people use to earn respect within this culture.  Yes, this is a culture dominated by black people and in this movie walks a white boy, who wants to rap - that is use their weapons to earn respect.  They see it as him entering their (and read that as black) world and using their (and read that as black) weapons - words, which is something no white boy has ever done.

The movie builds on this words as weapons subtly, as it leads up to the finally showdown between Rabbit and the villains of the movie. The first scene of the movie sets the stage for Rabbit as we see him chicken out right before he goes on stage to battle with another competitor.  He's seen throwing up in the bath room, then when he gets on stage he completely freezes out, staring out like a deer caught in the head lights.  He looks overwhelmed and as if everything about battling is over his head, so he just walks off the stage, defeated by everything.  By doing this the filmmakers set up Rabbit's journey to the last battle of the movie.  In this journey, Hanson and company show in some remarkable ways how Rabbit is different from the normal rappers around him.  They give little moments showcasing this "new" kinds of rap that Rabbit can do with "little" show downs throughout the movie that help to enlighten the viewer into the new kind weapons Rabbit has forged.  The first time he showcases his new weapons is basically an impromptu rap session outside a club that Rabbit and friends are attending.  The second time is before a lunch truck at work and the third time is when he and his main friend do some word smithing to the song Sweet Home Alabama.  In all of these instances we get to see how Rabbit's weapons are vastly different even though we still don't get to see him use them in the competitions that will earn him respect.  This is all good, because the movie builds to the last show down, which takes up the last 20 - 30 of the movie and it is a showdown we get to see Rabbit battle and earn his respect.  His use of his own weapons to battle the other rappers is brilliantly pulled off, as his use of words and rhymes are in stark contrast to the people his is battling.  We also get to see how his life led up to him putting together words that will help him win the battle and the respect he's been seeking.  Nothing of this movie is wasted as his journey to the final battle helps to define him and words he forged.

I didn't realize how deep this movie was upon seeing the first time but the second viewing I had a whole new respect for this movie and everything it tried to do.

The film style of this movie, that I will label as gorilla film making, is basically a lot of on set location shooting that adds much realism and grittiness to every frame.  This style didn't start with this movie.  It's been around for a long time and will continue to be around for a long time, but I would say it came back with a vengeance in Good Will Hunting directed by Gus Van Sant.  It has continued with 8 Mile and has been picked with ease and assurance by David O Russell.  His back-to-back, one-two punch of The Fighter and Silver Linings Playback used this style to some of the best gorilla style film making I've seen in a long time as Russell, not only used a lot of on location shooting, but also added the hand held camera effect to this style as well.  Only he doesn't let the hand held effect confuse the viewer with shaky, out of focus scenes.  His scenes are focused with the viewer always knowing what is going on.  I think some of his style has roots in 8 Mile.

Warm Bodies

Directed by Johnathan Levine starring  Nicholas Holt, Teresa Palmer, Michale Corddry, and the always over-the-top, manic, and eccentric John Malkovich.

Finally, a zombie movie that wants to be different and try something new, instead of churning out the same old, bloody, gory, non-scary, and uninspired zombie movies of late .  I won't say this movie succeeds at this all the way, or all the time, but if you're willing to buy into the whole "zombie can be changed" mentality that this movie puts forth, then this is the movie for you.  This  movie is different and a fresh take on the zombie genre.  I can't say I was completely sold on the idea, but I was willing to let the movie run with the premise and see where it took me.  It genuinely was an interesting movie and a very odd love story.  I've always liked odd things and this movie does pay tribute to odd in all kinds of ways.

First things, first, I'm used to my zombie movies having tons of gore, blood, and painted red in about every scene.  Sadly enough this movie doesn't have much of either of those three things, with the lone exception of the red jumper the main character wears throughout the movie being the only red color painted in about every frame.  If you hadn't noticed that's not the same kind of red color I was missing.  No, this is a zombie with heart, and I mean the beating heart of wide-eyed, star crossed lovers of a romantic movie, not the pulsing, blood spurting heart ripped from a live chest, held in a hand with blood spraying everywhere or forcefully chewed apart in some kind of savage way, as the blood slides down the face and chin in a waterfall of thick red kind of movie.  So, being a  love story first, this movie does adhere to those genres cliches.  Why does the main girl so quickly seem to forget that the zombie she is with is a savage killer?  Why does she get over the death of her boyfriend (and the fact the zombie she's with killed him) with just a shrug and the thought, "We were going to break-up anyway"?  Because this is a love story first, so there must be some things that fit into the puzzle frame romanticism.  Then other things are built around that framework of a love story.

This is a movie that mixes a little bit of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet with a little splash of Robert Matheson's I Am Legend and comes up with an interesting and entertaining watch.  The best thing I liked about this movie was the dead pan, dry humor narrated by the main zombie character, named, R.  His observations about life as a zombie brought a different perspective to the genre and really helped to make this movie refreshing without seeming gimmicky.  And had me laughing out loud a lot of times at his comments from a zombie perspective.  These, and not the love story in my opinion, made the movie good and lifted it beyond the confines that have restricted zombie movies since they've bombarded audiences like the plagues in their films.  R's thought process, and basically journalistic approach to things, were humorous and enlightening.  I  just wish they had been populated and used more throughout the film.  There are times when they just disappear through long stretches of the movie, which doesn't make a lot of sense as it was his narrative that started the movie and drove it forward.  I just think his inner monologue needed to be there more as it was a main focus of the movie.  When it's there is some insightful and funny thoughts by a zombie and almost had a little A Clockwork Orange vibe to them.

I like the idea that zombies can change.  No one has really toyed around with that idea before, as everyone seems to want to keep them a walking corpse with an appetite for brains, blood, flesh, and virtually anything living.  I do believe Day of the Dead, directed George Romero, did toy around with this idea, but I haven't seen that movie, only read about it, so I can't fully comment on to the extent he explored this idea. I do like how this movie at least wants to be different with this exploration of change in zombies.  I felt it was a little to happy of an ending though.  But the idea of them changing was fascinating, as it brought up memories of reading Matheson's I Am Legend, which had the premise of a virus turning people into vampires/zombies.  But like any virus it mutates, thus it starts by changing the human race into mindless vampires/zombie then it mutates and creates a new form of vampire/zombies different from the mindless ones wondering about before.  Warm Bodies plays around with idea but not in the virus mutating kind of way, instead its thesis is that love can change a zombie.  I really wish it had played around with the virus idea because it would have made more sense for a changed zombie than just love.  But this is a love story first, so I guess there has to be some credibility stretched for some things that take place.

The other thing I liked about this movie was how music was used throughout to conveying things happening in scenes or to show emotion.  This is one soundtrack I wouldn't mind owning.  They used some memorable and toe tapping songs that really helped to make a connection, not just with the love story, but the story in general.

Overall this was a fun and entertaining movie, well worth the time to see.  And Malkovich was his normal manic self as I don't think he does a lot of acting anymore but just seems to play variations on himself, no matter what film he's in.   Here he does a variation on himself if he'd been in a plague where zombies had arisen, killed most of mankind, including his wife, and left him a bitter, untrusting sort of man, whose sole purpose is to protect what is left of mankind.

H2O: Season Two

H2O: Season Two.

I just finished watching Season Two with my daughter, Abby. I've still got to say it's one the better teen shows out there with good relationship building and good a good focus on family which seems to be lacking in a lot of teen shows. 

This show doesn't have the terrible acting and plot lines of those Disney tween shows. Don't get me wrong there's a lot of moments where I was shaking my head saying, "That doesn't make any sense, what just happened there." But all in all it wasn't a bad little show to watch with my girl and she was whole heartily entertained. I guess girls really have a thing for mermaids...and horses...and dolphins, at least mine does. 

This season does introduce a worthy and believable adversary to the three mermaid girls, which made for some interesting situations. They also build more on the mermaid mythology from Season One. Then from what Jess and I read about Season Three and have seen so far everything goes downhill after Season Two: ditching one of the main characters, adding a new mermaid (and having her be a rock singer[??]), ditching three of the main boys, adding a new boy, having the girls save the world from a meteor crashing into earth will tend to ruin everything previously established from the first two seasons. 

My opinion watch the first two seasons and pretend Season Three doesn't exist.

Doctor Who: Season Six

Doctor Who: Season Six or How he learned to stop worrying and just love time travel.

If this season should be known for anything it’s how Doctor Who finally embraced the fact that he’s a time traveler and the writers finally started incorporating time travel into the show and started treating the show like The Back to the Future movies. Let me tell you it’s all the better for it.

I’m not saying it perfect.  There were still things I didn't like.  I never could fully understand how the Rory's could just not go after their child.  That made no sense to me what-so-ever.  But it’s been super fun to watch as the head tripping and head scratching of time travel, in my opinion, has really opened up the show like it never has before. 

I also really feel Matt Smith came into his own this season as the Doctor.  Te just seemed a lot more comfortable this season than he had in the previous seasons. This series is all about fun and space rollicking adventure-time.  For those who are seeking more than that please don’t apply, but for those of you who like that sort of thing this is your series. Don’t expect super long story arcs, in depth character development, because it’s not here.  These are good old fashioned stories that are drenched in the classic sci-fi stories from 50’s, 60’, and 70’s and they make no bones about it that’s what they are.  They where it on their sleeve with pride. 

This is still some of the best sci-fi on TV hands down. The producers and writers have such a passion and love for this series and the Doctor character himself that it’s practically saturated with it in each episode. I’m happy the Doctor finally got some people behind that understand him and understand sci-fi, because this show is so much better than it was when I was kid and I look forward to watching it with my kids when they get older, like my dad and I used to watch it late into the night.  Now Jess and I are almost caught to the new season of the Doctor really looking forward to seeing Season Seven as soon as it's finished and the infamous 50th anniversary episode.

The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow and staring Hawkeye from the Avengers (Jeremy Renner). 

First off I can't believe this movie won best picture and best director, that just shows me how low the Academy's standards have fallen since I stopped watched it years ago.  I can honestly say I don't think I've missed much if this movie is considered a pinnacle of excellence. I also have to admit I don't put much stock or faith in the words "From the Academy" anymore anyhow. 

I actually sort of liked this movie despite the many flaws that attempted me from liking it whenever they reared their ugly head. Kathryn Bigelow was the biggest flaw of all in this movie. Her directing was one of the things I thought really hurt this movie and kept it from being that much better.  Too many shaky camera shots, jump cut, quick cut, and zoom in to tell what the hell was going on most of the time. When a movie is this action/tense centered and centered on a main character who strives for details in his work,, so he can defuse bombs, everything in the movie must support this detail motif.  The audience needs to know what is going on, unless the story line is being ironic or satirical in some way and this movie is not in any sense of those words. I hate not knowing what's going on in a scene anyhow - it just drives me nuts - to be a good artist you must communicate with the audience and that communication must be understood. The Hunger Games is a prime example of a director ruining a perfectly good movie by his choice of not directing and instead just throwing the camera shots around any which way he choose. The Hurt Locker isn't always like this, but most of the time it is and the few times Bigelow chooses to direct or actually set up a memorable shot she succeeded beautifully leaving a lasting image in the mind.  But her over all lack of actual direction left me wanting to watch Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket to see an actual directed movie- about war - with characters I got to know and cared about. 

I really hate story lines that go for realism and then have that realism broke down with the main character or secondary characters doing things that are totally unrealistic or just plain stupid for the sake of the Hollywoodized or sensationalized story line. The Hurt Locker for the most part adheres to this realism, but it's those few times where the story lines goes totally stupid, it took me away from the realism trying to be achieved. It also took the movie about an hour to start the first act.  And that hour time was wasted with no character building.  Meaning, I had absolutely no knowledge about any of the characters.  Just a bunch of action/tense scenes to build upon.  It made it really hard to care about any of the characters so far introduced and what tense, argumentative scenes there were between the characters felt forced because I didn't know these characters. 

But other than all of this I had a good time watching this movie despite all the things that jarred me out of the story line. Bigelow does set up some really nice action/tense sequences, when she chooses too - the sniper scene is a good example, which also sets up some good character development between the three main characters, the movie needed more scenes like this.  It's the moments after the action where the movie needs to expand on the characters and let the audience care about them so that when a tense/action scene arrives the audience needs to be invested in those characters, so they care about them when they enter the life or death situations. There is a really good movie here wanting to be directed.

Doctor Who: Season Five

Doctor Who: Season Five. 

Well the Matt Smith era of Doctor Who got off to the best start of all the other Doctor's, so far. I don’t think any of these episodes had any down time and seemed a lot more focused than the other standalone episodes and seasons of the previous Doctors. As my wife Jess said the hardest thing about this season of the Doctor was adjusting to Matt Smith because he was following up the best actor to ever play Doctor Who (David Tennant). And it was hard adjusting to him.  He brings a totally different approach to the Doctor than David Tennant brought, but knowing that before you go into watching a season where a new Doctor takes over helps with the adjusting to the acting and mannerisms. 

Matt Smith is a good Doctor. He brings his own unique spin on being the Doctor and, in my opinion, it serves well for creating a different Doctor, which is what it’s supposed to do. The best thing this season does is fully take advantage of the whole Tardis being a time travel ship and as the season goes on the mold of the show has a Back to Future kind of feel to it, as the time travel concepts start to really kick in. 

They even bring back the wonderful Professor Riversong who further enhances the time travel concepts that no other season of Doctor Who has ever done like this season has. Let me tell you the show is better for it. Really looking forward to seeing more of Professor Riversong in later episodes as it’s clearly hinted she’s the Doctor’s wife or at least someone who is really close to the Doctor.  This brings up all kinds of interesting things from a storyline perspective and character development of the Doctor that I’m really looking forward to seeing played out over the next season or seasons. 

Another thing, this season has brought, is the full time writing and producing of Steven Moffat who wrote some of the best episodes in the previous seasons and his influence from characters to dialogue can clearly be seen. There’s a lot more banter and great talking scenes that just add to the show as a whole. I’m not saying it wasn’t there before, but Moffat’s presence sure has brought a lot these elements to the forefront. 

The one thing, fully brought back from the previous seasons of Doctor Who, is the overall arch for the story line that continues in each episode, further adding to the menace of the final two episodes of the seasons, which bring some mind bending, twisting time travel excellence. I must say adding Karren Gillian as Amy Pond was a stroke of genius as she bring a sexiness to the role of the companion, that as far as I know has never been there.  Her red hair and Scottish accent only enhance everything about her and basically are another character unto themselves and all the better for it.  Also there's just a pluckiness and fire by adding a red head - I should know I'm married to one. But I also like how the writers used her story as basically the template for the entire season and they let her be married and bring her husband along for the time travel. That was brave of the writers to do and I really like them for doing that because it makes for a more interesting dynamic as they deal with character, situations, and dialogue than they before. There's just that much more to work with now than there was before by adding a husband and wife as the traveling companions. Plus it also plants little seeds for the Doctor about marrying.

Hitchcock

Hitchcok directed by Sacha Gervasi starring Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Danny Huston, Scarlett Johansson, Toni Collette, and Jessica Biel.

I didn't think this was a great film, but it was a highly entertaining film, with some very good pacing, acting, direction, and music. The movie was never dull, or at least I didn't think so.  I also wonder what someone who doesn't know who Alfred Hitchcock is or has never seen Psycho would think about this movie.  I come to this movie knowing a lot about Hitchcock and having seen (and own) a great number of his films.  It was hard putting aside that knowledge as I watched this film because I knew a lot about what was going on in certain scenes.  I don't know if this helped or hinged me as I watched this movie.  Over all I liked the movie and found it a pleasant way to spend an hour and half of time.  By then end of the movie I didn't feel that time had been wasted.

The biggest reason to see this movie is the two actors in the lead roles.  Anthony Hopkins plays Alfred Hitchcock and Helen Mirren plays his wife, Alma Hitchcock.  These two were a delight to see on screen together and did a remarkable job of portraying an artistic married couple as they battled their up and down relationship.  Hopkins embodied Hitchcock - not just physically mind you - but also in mannerisms and even his speech was enunciated with Hitchcock's embellishment on words.  There was also a little Hannibal Lector in his speech and mannerisms, which is I guess OK as some of the story line relied heavily on Hitchcock using his films as a cathartic experience to exorcise his demons.  His many conversations with the late Ed Gein only help to enforce Hopkins either accidental or on purpose use of parts of Lector.  Mirren was a delight as she played the tortured artist ever standing behind the - large - shadow of Hitchcock.  She played the quiet wife to the public, with a precise perception, as she battled her own creative expression to the over large persona of her husband that the media had pushed her into and him into the lime light as a lone genius.  This story is as much about her as it about Hitchcock.  He wasn't just a driving force behind his movies, but her presence could be felt throughout everything as well, as this movie makes quite clear.  I really liked how this movie turned into a love story, of sorts, as it crossed into the third act.  It wasn't a sudden shift because there had been many moments leading up this point and when it crossed over it made for a really interesting love story.  Unlike any love story I've ever seen before.  But a good love story none-the-less.  Mirren played her part extremely well. 

Other things I noticed.  The consumption of food and drink played a huge part in this movie as Hitchcock is seeing eating or drinking many times.  It reminded me a lot of Tony Soprano from the Sopranos.  Even the sound of the food or drink being consumed reminded me of that show, as the sound tract did its best to emphasize Hitchcock and his intake of food or drink.  I think this has something to do, not just with his weight, but his appetite for things and his willingness to devour everything, and all people around him with reckless abandon, when his artistic urges arose.  His relationship with this wife and Vera Miles testifies to this throughout the movie.  

Danny Elman's score for this film simply worked on so many levels, as it heralded back to the collaboration of Bernard Herrmann and Hitchcock with ease, and in my opinion wasn't a hindrance to the movie.  It made the movie have a good feel for a Hitchcock thriller, without being overburdening, considering it wasn't a standard thriller, but had thrilleristic tendencies.  The music infused the scenes with an added suspense, when it needed it to, and flowed with the movie, when it called for it.  I personally think it was one of his best scores.

I've never heard of this director, but Sacha Gervasi did an interesting and competent job of handling this movie.  He was served with a decent screenplay and some great actors and actresses to help him turn an unlikely story into a entertaining movie.

Doctor Who: Season Four

Doctor Who: Season Four staring David Tennant and Katherine Tate. 

Well this is the last season for the best actor to ever play Doctor Who and what a last season he has. It’s both extremely memorable and as full of emotion, as anything I’ve seen from Doctor Who. One thing became very clear during this season, the Doctor needs a traveling companion because the few episodes, that didn’t have a set traveling  companion, I could tell there was something missing.  Then when Katherine Tate showed up the dialogue, banter, and sarcasm really started to fly, allowing the missing humor to inject the episodes with life, energy, and an intimacy that was clearly missing without a traveling companion. 

One of the things I’ve really come to like about this show is how the writers have made the Doctor and his traveling companions more real and relate-able.  They've done this a few ways.  One of those ways is by making their responses to things seem real and consistent.  By doing that they give the viewer an honest connection with the character because we know they will respond in a certain situation and that makes it funny, and like I said before, it makes relate-able.  Whereas if they were to respond out of character it takes the viewer out of the situation because the response is against the nature of the character. The writers seem to realize this and keep the consistency of the characters true to their character. 

Another thing I like that the writers do is actually have an idea where the story line is going and not just throwing things on the wall to see what sticks.  They also continue to plant seeds throughout the Season that was foreshadowed the last few episodes of this Season. I really like seeing shows that don’t treat the viewer as stupid but wants the viewer to pay attention to what is going on and encourages the viewer to pay attention to what is going on. I think the only thing I would have against this Season, but seems to be something that happens a lot in the Doctor Who Seasons, is that they start really slow and take about six episodes or so to get going.  This is a small complaint because when the episodes do get going they really take off  with full nuclear force. With so much force that I forgot about the slowness of it starting because it ends with such a double bang. 

This Season especially ended with a huge double bang: the actual Season ends with a huge two part episode that brings literally everyone back in David Tennant’s run that it’s sort of a family reunion and then there are four specials the last one being another huge two parter that is epic in scope and ideas. There are movies that don’t come anywhere near touching the hugeness of what they did in these episodes on an emotional scale or an idea scale. It made for some great television and a great ending to the David Tennant run. The writers even give David Tennant some great acting scenes that make his departure truly heartbreaking and his final line very emotional, “I don’t want to go.” He brought such a passion and energy to the Doctor role that I haven’t ever seen. I’m just extremely grateful he got to play the Doctor for more than one season. David Tennant, I don’t want you to go.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Snow White and the Huntsman directed by Rupert Sanders starring that whiny girl from the Twilight series and Chris Hemsworth.

How bad is this movie? 

It's really bad and the screenplay writers should hold their heads in shame. All of the fantasy cliches are here: destruction of village-Check; a lot of tracking shots of people traveling-Check; the infamous, "I'll swing my sword for you, bend my bow for you," speech-Check; villain wanting to take over the world-Check; a chosen one destined to save the world-Check; and a training scene/sequence-Check. This is one big long cliche ridden movie with little or thought actually given to anything but trying to real in the Twilight fans.

The continuity in this film is really bad and hinders most of the plot and pacing. Snow White stays locked up in that tower for like 14-15 years since she was a little girl, just think about that for a second, living in small room for that long. How would you look? What kind of knowledge would you have? How able would you be able to associate with people or for that matter even converse with people? Then all of sudden she escapes and is thrust forcibly into the world and responds with no real amazement, in fact it all just seems like another day for a girl who had been imprisoned for the last 14-15 years. I mean Of course why wouldn't it be. 

Then The Queen needs to find someone to lead them through the Dark Forest so they get the Huntsman to help them, then he joins with Snow White. So what does the Queen do?  She sends more people into the Dark Forest to find them. Wait a minute, didn't she just say she needed someone to guide her men through the Dark Forest and now all of a sudden they can just enter it without any guidance? That makes no sense. I could go on and on. The acting. What acting? There are hardly any scenes between two people where acting is involved it's all just an excuse to get what resembles the plot moving forward there is no character development no motivations other than standard cliched ones. What character development there is hinted at: the Queen's being cursed/blessed by her mother for revenge is intriguing but goes no where, it's just words spoken because they sound interesting.  The Huntsman mourning his wife is just the standard token "Let's give him something dark from his past" and goes no where.  The scene where the Queen's brother admits to raping the Huntsman's wife was pathetic and stretching.  It was just included to make him all the more evil and to give the Huntsman some sort of motivation.  Both of these attempts as character development go no where. They are merely just passing attempts to give the movie some form of substance.  They piqued my interests but then went no where. 

I'm not a big fan of Kirsten Stewart.  She seems to have the same whiny expression in about every movie she does and every scene she's in, no matter what kind of emotional state the scene requires.  Her face is always one of pouting, confusion, and bewilderment.  But even I'll admit they didn't give her much to work with in this movie.  She was just required to stand around looking perplexed, flustered, confused, or somewhat angry but then again maybe that's why she was hired. Then that speech she has to use near the end of the movie to rouse the troops was terrible and completely unmoving. Chris Hemsworth was the real star and characteristic person in this movie as the Huntsman. The really sad thing is there's a good movie here wanting to be made.