The Cinema Guru

Wes Craven: The Man, The Legend

2015-09-02T20:20:00.001-05:00

I've told the story many, many times over the years but it's time to tell the story again. Way back in 1997, I was a dorky, little fool who really only liked comedies and Disney movies. But, one thing I hated more than anything was horror films. I refused to watch horror films because I just didn't like them. When a little film called Scream came out everyone, everywhere were raving about this movie. And I, for one, just didn't care. Finally, I just gave into peer pressure and finally, reluctantly, sat down to watch this little horror film.

I sat there riveted. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and when the movie was over I realized I had just watched something special. Scream would go on to spawn 3 sequels and a successful 2015 TV series. But, at least in my generation, the film kind of became a joke. So, me saying that this film is special to me and "changed my life" makes me feel kind of goofy. But it did change my life, it completely changed my life.

After seeing "Scream", I made it a mission to see as many horror films as I could so I would understand any of the references in any of the films. And now, almost 20 years later, I get all the references!

You may be asking yourself, why am I even bothering telling this story again? If you really wanted to read the story you could go back and read my "Scream" review from years ago. The reason is because, not only did the film get me into horror films but it introduced me to the person who would go on to become my favorite director and aside from one movie that followed "Scream", I would see every single one of his movies in the theater. That man, was Wes Craven.

Unlike most of the general public, I had never heard of Wes Craven when Scream came out. I had heard of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and knew it involved Freddy Krueger and how he looked but that was it. Didn't know the director or the cast or anything else. But after seeing "Scream" one of the things I did was make it a mission to see more films by Wes Craven. This led me down a path I was never coming back from but enjoying the hell out of.

I spent the next, nearly 20 years, enjoying horror films and changing my passion from nothing to writing. The writing aspect came from Mr. Craven himself as I began to realize he wrote a lot of the films he directed and I found that the films he wrote were far better than the ones he didn't. And so began my passion for writing.

On August 30, 2015 we lost Mr. Craven after a battle with brain cancer. Words could not describe the pain I felt. Wes Craven was a big part of my life through his films. I would watch anything and everything he worked on from his big budget theatrical films to his garbage TV movies to films that he simply produced all the way down to the film "Wes Craven Presents They" which he had absolutely nothing to do with. I felt like I lost a friend and even though I knew the day was eventually coming that he would be gone, I never really thought about that. It had been a dream of mine to meet the man and tell him how much he changed my life and how I majored in writing in college because of his films. I spent many years of my life studying writing because I loved the movies he made. Some might looked at his films as low budget trash, especially films like "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes" but I look at them as groundbreaking and very interestingly those films look very tame nowadays compared to the torture-porn crap we have today.

I'm writing this really to just get my feelings out there. I wanted to do this right away the day after he died, but I just couldn't put any of this into words until today. Most people nowadays will remember him for Scream, but he did so much more, he worked on films and TV. He was a director, writer, producer and actor. One of his greatest films he ever made "New Nightmare" brought all of those aspects of him together.

Wes, even though I never got to meet you and tell you this, but you changed my life. You meant so much to me and you will never be forgotten. Not by me and not by the millions of others who were touched by your work as I was. Your legacy lives on and I want to thank you for all the wonderful films you have left us with.

When a Stranger Calls (1979)

2013-01-12T21:12:00.004-06:00

"Have you checked the children?"

Before there was "Scream" there was 'The Stranger'...

"When a Stranger Calls" is horror film from the late 1970s that was inspired by a classic urban legend. The babysitter alone in a house being terrorized by a man who keeps calling asking if she's "checked children", only to find out the call is coming from inside the house! And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the first 20 minutes of the film. The rest of the film drags and drags and drags. After the initial 20 minutes of the movie we jump 7 years where we find that the psychopath from the first film has escaped and is now roaming the streets, stalking some ugly middle-aged woman. The film spends a good 40 minutes with this whole thing and it never pays off!

Charles Durning plays a private detective who is tracking down this psycho. After he almost catches him we jump back to Jill (played by Carol Kane) where she is now a stay at home mom with 2 kids. First thing I have to say is, how is Jill old enough to have 2 kids THOSE ages. They look to be at least 7 and 3. We are led to believe that she is a teenager in the beginning of the film and then the film jumps 7 years, which would make her in her early to mid 20s. Just seems kind of odd to me.
Anyway, she and her husband are going out to dinner and leave their kids with a babysitter. Somehow the psycho knows where she lives and what restaurant she will be at and calls her and starts her freaking out all over again. The film ends abruptly and you walk out wondering what the hell you just saw.

The first 20 minutes of the film are amazing, truly terrifying. I am not scared by much, but as I watched this in my dark bedroom in the middle of the night, I found myself clinging to my blankets because it was seriously scary. But after that the film falls apart. The director spends too much time on the killer and his odd obsession with some random middle-aged woman he finds in a bar. As the audience I just didn't give a shit about this story line, especially since it leads to nothing! Once we get back to Jill and her story I feel the film finds itself, but it's literally just rehash of the beginning of the film with Jill now the mother instead of the babysitter.

The film will always be remembered for the first 20 minutes but nothing else, I don't really consider it a classic but it's worth watching at least once.

A Christmas Story 2 (2012)

2012-12-03T01:46:00.001-06:00

In 1983, late director Bob Clark (Black Christmas, Porky's) made what some consider the greatest Christmas movie ever made. "A Christmas Story" has gone down in history for that that simple fact; even TBS plays the movie for 24 hours straight on Christmas day. Personally, I feel the film is very overrated, not saying that it's a bad film just overrated. That being said, Warner Brothers in their infinite wisdom decided that what "A Christmas Story" needed was a sequel, almost 30 years later.

Being promoted as "the official sequel to 'A Christmas Story'", Warner Brothers seems to have forgotten that the film already has had TWO sequels before this one: a 1988 TV movie entitled "Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss" and the 1994 film "It Runs in the Family" (most commonly known as "My Summer Story"), but since Warner Brothers didn't make those films I guess they felt they didn't count as sequels and they have completely disregarded them.

Now that that's out of the way lets delve into this bear sized shit of a movie. The story is about Ralphie and he's an annoying 15-year old who wants a car. Him and his stupid friends wreck a car at a dealership and the rest of the movie is all about them trying to come up with $85 to fix the car. Daniel Stern (Home Alone) plays the father in this film and he comes off as a very cold hearted cheapskate. At the end of the film he seems to have redeemed himself and proves to be a loving father, but throughout the rest of the film he's just an asshole.

The film does what I assume they felt were homages to the original film but in reality they were just blatant rip offs. This film rehashes so much from the original film it baffles me why they even bothered making a "sequel" instead of a "remake". They rehash the tongue to the pole in a rather stupid way by having the same character stick his tongue in a vacuum at a department store and then you get to see his face stretch out inside the tube as some goofy way of making this generation of retarded children laugh. Having Ralphie dress up in a stupid animal costume is rehashed having him dress as a reindeer at a department store. Somehow the leg lamp is back at the very end, though the film never really admits who the hell gave it to the father. So much is rehashed from the original film all the way down to Ralphie's brother getting a space ship for Christmas and sitting on the floor making "vroom" sounds with it (in the original film he gets a blimp and does the same thing).

This film fails so horribly it's not even funny. I didn't expect anything at all from this film but I just wanted to give it a shot. Seeing Daniel Stern embarrass himself in this direct-to-video garbage is terrible. The man made some classic comedies in his day and he has been reduced to this trash. That being said, Stern is the ONLY good thing about this film. He does give a stellar performance but his character is so cynical it's hard to even enjoy it. The only thing this film did well (and I'm using that term lightly) is they got an actor (surprisingly the writer) to sound JUST like Jean Shepard narrating. But something that small and pathetic can't save this useless, unneeded and unwanted sequel to a film that is considered a classic.

Halloween (1978)

2012-10-31T01:15:00.001-05:00

"It's Halloween, I guess everyone is entitled to one good scare"

The mother of them all! Halloween was made during a time when horror films were few and far between. "Psycho" started the slasher genre in 1960 but the genre laid dormant for almost 2 decades until John Carpenter came along and changed film history forever.

Halloween was released in 1978 and cost a mere $320,000 to make but it earned far more than that, becoming the highest grossing independent film at that time. The film is so simple yet so effective. The film follows Laurie Strode (played by a then unknown Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends on the night of Halloween as they are stalked and killed by a masked assailant. By today's standards this story has been told a million times over, by in the late 1970s this was something new. Especially the tone that Carpenter brought forth. The film is genuinely scary because of the simpleness to it. Michael Myers is portrayed as a faceless character, and when you do see his face (only twice) he shows no emotion whatsoever. The film begins with a very long POV shot of a young girl being stalked and then murdered, when the scene is over you discover the person whose point of view it came from was a 6-year-old boy. Just the thought of that is enough to chill you to the bone!

This film also really established the horny, drug crazed teenagers that followed oh, so many times in the following decade. This really defined many films since then. And it was even the basis of the 2012 film "The Cabin in the Woods".

Overall, much can be said about Carpenter and his influence on the horror genre. Halloween was his crowning achievement and sadly he has distanced himself as much as he can from the film. I guess he got tired of being constantly reminded of it, but it's a shame he doesn't like it anymore. It seems over the past few years Carpenter has really distanced himself from all of his films, he almost comes off as if he resents the films. But, he has left us with a great amount of fantastic horror/sci-fi films to choose from.

Halloween was such a success that a franchise began followed by the 1981 sequel "Halloween II" which was produced and written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. "Halloween III" which came out the following year was also produced and written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. The duo left the franchise after that never to be attached to it again.

A Short Review of "The Body", an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

2012-10-26T01:12:00.004-05:00

I spent my years in college studying television production and writing and received my B.A. in that in 2009. Throughout my years in college I have learned to analyze and love television shows from the stories to the production value and I continue that to this very day. Granted I have not been able to practice my art in many ways since I graduated but I still watch television shows more than anything else, regardless of this blog being specifically for movie reviews.

Today, I have chosen to speak about one of my favorite episodes of any television show out there. This episode spoke to me profoundly for many reasons, but the main reason is because something like this happened to me in my own life. In 2000, my mother suffered a severe stroke and later died in 2006 from complications related to that. It was a very dark time in my life, a time that I would never want to relive. In 2002, I began watching the television series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I've a horror fan for many years, and I felt I would enjoy this series. I was right! "Buffy" is such a fun series to watch and re-watch, the writing is brilliant, the acting is brilliant, almost everything about this series is brilliant. In early 2001 an episode aired called "The Body" which dealt with the death of Buffy's mother. I did not see the episode until very late 2003 but when I finally did I realized how important this episode would be to me.

The episode deals with Buffy's mother who had surgery done to remove a tumor from her brain and in the episode she dies from complications due to this. The rest of the episode is basically everyone coping with the loss of her, and just that description sounds pretty boring or could be sappy, but I want to take a look at some of the things that happen in the show.

First off, there is no music. Throughout the entire episode no music is heard at all. I felt this gave off the eeriness of that feeling you get after someone dies. It's hard to explain the feelings you go through after a loved one dies, especially someone so close to you. This episode spoke to me so much because Joss Whedon did such a good job recreating a time in someone's life that is so hard to describe. In the opening Buffy finds her mother dead and tries frantically to call 911 and administer CPR, but to no avail. The paramedics show up and realize she is dead and leave Buffy alone. She then calls Giles, but her phone call is very vague as to what has happened, leading Giles to think that the main villain of that season is at her house. Buffy then wanders through her house aimlessly. The power of this scene speaks volumes, as when something terrible like that happens I think most people do the same thing. You don't know what to do but you know you have to do something. When Giles arrives he tries himself to revive the mother, but Buffy bursts out with the line "We're not supposed to move the body" and she realizes that she just referred to her mother as "the body" and she breaks down. There some sort of denial when someone dies. It's subconscious to a point but it hits you like a truck when you say out loud "she's dead" or you refer to her as "the body" instead of "mom".

One of my favorite scenes in the entire episode is when we find Willow, Xander, Anya and Tara getting ready to go to the hospital to be with Buffy and Anya doesn't understand why someone so close to them has died and why she can't just get up and go on living. The actress, Emma Caulfield, did such an amazing job performing that scene that it always touches my heart. When you're thrown into a situation like this no one really knows why someone has died and why life has to even end. I still ask myself these questions to this very day. And something that is stated during this scene is how the character was drinking something and when they heard the mother died one of the things she thought was that the mother would never drink that drink again. I don't know about other people, but when someone close to me dies I always think about how there are certain things they'll never do again or see items they've left behind and how it might have been when they left it there. When my mother died our house was filled with stuff she had touched just the day before and it broke my heart.

It's the little things that were in the episode that made it very special. I think the episode spoke volumes to me because of my own personal situation, I'm not sure if it spoke to other people like this or not, but it is a very special episode to me and I personally think it's the greatest television episode ever made. Joss Whedon did such a wonderful job perfecting this episode in every way and the actors were so unbelievable at the same time.

The Music Man (2003)

2012-07-17T20:37:00.003-05:00

"The sadder but wiser girl for me"

Meredith Willson's The Music Man was a Broadway musical that brought down the house. The year was 1959 and only a few years later a big budget Hollywood film version would be done. In 1962, Robert Preston wowed audiences with his portrayal of Harold Hill in this very film. Preston reprised his role from the Tony Award winning performance he gave in the Broadway show. Just over 40 years later Disney decided it was time to remake The Music Man for The Wonderful World of Disney...

The film is a direct adaptation of the original Broadway play and comparing it to the original plays out very much like the film version. Matthew Broderick plays Professor Harold Hill and his performance is a yawn fest. And in all fairness I did not sit there comparing this film to the original, Broderick cannot play Harold Hill to save his life. He plays the character very much like he's reading off cue cards. If you look at his performance of the songs "Ya Got Trouble" and "76 Trombones" it is very obvious he just doesn't give a shit. That character should be charismatic but he plays it like he forgot to read the script and everyone is just helping him. The songs are incredibly slow because of his cardboard performance.

And Broderick isn't the only offender here either. All of the actors preform as if they are made of cardboard. Even veteran actors like Victor Garber (playing Mayor Shinn) are awful. I'm not sure if the actors were trying to portray the actors from the original film or they really just didn't care, but all the performances in this film are awful.

The casting was poorly done as well. Matthew Broderick was chosen because at the time he was a big star on Broadway with "The Producers" so it was a natural selection to pick him. But, take a look at the film version of "The Producers" and he's just as bad in that film too! Molly Shannon (playing Mrs. Shinn) was probably one of the worst choices they could have made. Shannon overacts in every single thing she is in. A really good example of how bad she is and how bad the producers were on this film is the scene in which the firecracker goes off under her feet. In the original film it goes off, she yells out "I'm shot!" and falls down. A very funny scene and direct to the point. In this film, the firecracker blows her dress up over her head and she falls backward into a curtain pulling it down yelling out "I'm shot! I'm shot! George! George!", seriously over done for no reason, and it takes all the fun out of the little prank.

Victor Garber I thought was a good choice to play Mayor Shinn but as earlier stated his performance is very subpar. He was really great as Oliver Warbucks in Disney's 1999 film "Annie", but sadly he suffers in this role. Kristen Chenoweth as Marion Paroo was poorly cast as well. I've seen Kristen in other roles and she always plays odd characters. The role of Marion Paroo is a very straight forward character that I just can't seen Kristen doing well, and she doesn't. She can sing, there's no doubt about that, but she can't act.

Overall the film is awful, the opening song was so badly done it was ridiculous! The song is supposed to be fast paced, but it's slowed down for whatever reason and it's awful. Also, the fun of the opening scene is that Harold Hill is sitting in the train car the whole time and NO ONE knows about it, especially the audience! Yet in this version the director chooses to do close ups of Broderick over and over again taking the reveal of his character completely away! Also, the reaction of the character when he finds it is Hill is so elementary school stupid. He does a double take then keeps repeating "That's Harold Hill! That's the guy we were just talking about!", as if those guys or even the audience didn't already know that! His name is on the fucking briefcase! I think the director/producers think that America is really that stupid that we couldn't figure stuff like that out.

Anyway, enough of my ranting, if you want to see the film go watch the original 1962 film starring Robert Preston and avoid this one like the plague!

Rock of Ages (2012)

2012-06-16T02:06:00.000-05:00

"I love rock n' roll"

I am a big fan of musicals, and I am actually a pretty big fan of the 2007 film "Hairspray", so when I saw a new musical was coming from the director of "Hairspray" I was pretty excited, especially since it was a musical featuring 80s music. A film with an amazing cast and some really good looking things, pretty much fell flat.

The film centers around Sherrie who shows up in Hollywood from Ohio ready to break out on the scene as a singer. She meets Drew who works at the Bourbon Room and he gets her a job. The entire film takes place over the course of a few days and involves the last ever performance of the band Arsenal, featuring lead singer Stacee Jaxx (played by Tom Cruise). The film starts out really great, a great opening musical number performed by a great lineup of performers (including a short verse by Alec Baldwin). The film seems to have quite a bit of plotlines going on. Aside from the band's final performance there's a plotline of Sherrie trying to get Drew to take the stage and perform with his band, The Bourbon Room is bankrupt, Catherine Zeta-Jones plays the wife of the mayor trying to get The Bourbon Room shut down because rock music is satan music, there's a reporter who at first hates Stacee Jaxx then loves him... there's just too much going on in this film.

The film never really feels like it has a plot at all. There's just so much going on it felt like the writer just sat down and wrote down ideas and then instead of trying to form them into a story he just threw them all in front of each other. There are a few funny moments, mainly from Russell Brand, but overall the film isn't that great. It drags on a lot, and they have some weird moments. There's a part in the film when Drew plays "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey and claims that he wrote it about Sherrie and himself. This just comes off as odd, why would they have a movie where none of the rock music in the real world exists. It would have been more believable and more acceptable if Drew had been a member of Journey, but he isn't. And in reality the song was written in 1981, the film takes place in 1987, so this makes absolutely no sense!

As for the musical numbers they all seem to be ensemble pieces. And some of them are 2 different songs spliced together. At some points it's good, but mostly it feels awkward and even some times pointless. And unlike the director's previous musical film, this film does not end on a big musical number. It ends with Stacee Jaxx and company performing "Don't Stop Believing", which at this point feels very much like "Glee" as they have made that their anthem.

Overall the film is okay at best, if you want to see it go see it and judge for yourself. But, I feel the film fell flat and disappointed.

The Three Stooges (2012)

2012-04-22T22:17:00.001-05:00

"Who's the fancy pants in the top hat and scarf?... That's a snowman"

When I first heard about a film company wanting to make a Three Stooges film, I was very much against it. I mean, these guys actually existed and they were hilarious! You can just pick some random actors and make them look like the guys and think they can be funny. Well, I was wrong. "The Three Stooges" delivers with a boatload of laughs and hilarity.

The film is split into 3 segments (designed to be like 3 Three Stooges shorts put together). The first of the segments is about how the three came to be, being dropped off at an orphanage and growing up there. Here we see the boys as kids for a while and then finally grown up. The stuff with the kids is kind of boring with a few laughs here and there. Amazingly, the filmmakers got a great kid to play Moe. The kid playing Larry is kind of creepy looking that's for sure! Once we meet up with the guys as adults the hilarity begins.

The film's overall plot involves a rich woman trying to get the guys to kill her husband so she can get his money and run off with his best friend. A pretty standard plot, but the guys give it there all. There are plenty of scenes with physical humor that go on forever and you'll be laughing your ass off the whole time.

But you can't have great scenes without some scenes that sadly the filmmakers sunk to. There is a scene in a maternity ward where the guys use babies peeing sort of like water guns. A scene that isn't very funny and very juvenile. The Three Stooges were about physical comedy and most of their stuff was "smart" comedy. In other words it was well thought out. This, was not that. Another scene involving a lion chained to a wall and one of the characters taunting it. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, however, the way the lion gets off the chain is something hits him in a testicles and this gives him power to break the chain. That, was really sinking low. Absolute bathroom humor that just wasn't needed. And finally a fart scene, I'm not going to go into details, but seriously, that's not the kind of humor the Stooges did.

Overall, the film is greatly done. The actors do a wonderful job, especially the actor playing Moe. Moe was always the main character (so to speak) and it was important that they get someone who can play him correctly. They did a great job. The film is classic slapstick humor and the film was absolutely done greatly. With a few flaws, the film is a home run!

American Reunion (2012)

2012-04-08T00:43:00.003-05:00

"I love the 'Twilight' books, 'New Moon' is my favorite!"

The "American Pie" franchise has surprisingly survived almost 15 years. Whether it's the original sequels with the original cast or those bastardized additions that carry the "American Pie Presents..." title, the series has been fruitful. For many years since "American Wedding" in 2003, everyone has been asking if another sequel was in the works. In 2012 (a full 9 years after "Wedding") the fans got what they were asking for. But was it a good thing or a bad thing?

"American Reunion" centers around the gang's 13th high school reunion (right here I stop and ask 13th??). The group gets back together and they all have their problems: whether it's Jim and Michelle's sex life after baby or Oz's crazy fucked up girlfriend and his yearning for Heather or Stifler trying to hide the fact that his life sucks now. The premise is simple so what's the next step? Add sex jokes and nudie scenes!

The "American Pie" films have been famous for 2 things: having a nudie scene somewhere around the middle of the film and having something disgusting happen to Stifler. Well, sadly in "American Reunion" neither of these things happen. There is a scene with a naked drunk girl and Jim trying to get her home but that's hardly the lesbian scene in "American Pie 2" or even the bachelor party in "American Wedding" and it doesn't even hold a candle to Shannon Elizabeth's scene in "American Pie". Stifler does do something disgusting but it doesn't happen to him. Do these things ruin the film? No, not at all.

Lets take a look at the characters. All the original cast members return for this outing in the franchise. Whether or not that's a good thing or not is up to the viewer. As much as I personally don't like Chris Klein, it was still nice to see Oz back. My problem with it was the fact that him and Heather were not together and he was with some bimbo in Hollywood. His story line dealt with exactly that, and at the end he and Heather are back together. But the main focus of all the "American Pie" films revolve around Jim and Stifler. Jim's story is he and Michelle haven't had much of a sex life since their son was born. The idea is boring especially with a character like Michelle who in the other films was a sex deviant. Stifler's story is his life sucks, he's stuck at a dead end job of being a gofer, but doesn't want anyone else to know. This is pretty much where a character like Stifler would more than likely end up in real life, so it's believable. As for Michelle, I'd like to ask where the quirky adorable Michelle went? I'm not sure if the producers didn't want to go this route with her or if Alyson Hannigan forgot how to do it, but it's completely gone. Her character isn't the same character from the other 3 films.

Even the minor characters from the past films returned. Jessica has returned to reveal she's a lesbian, Sherman returns and does his "Shermanator" stuff and Nadia returns with a Jim look-a-like. The problem with these cameos is that they are pointless. Jessica comes up to Stifler and literally says "Let me just get this out of the way, I'm a lesbian"... sorry, that's poor writing, just flatly telling the audience what's up with her? You don't just say what the characters are feeling or doing, you show the audience! Sherman's bit was pretty lame, but the worst offender was Nadia's cameo. She shows up see's Jim and Michelle having sex then leaves, I kid you not. Why did Shannon Elizabeth even agree to that? Plus, she sure as hell doesn't remember how to do her accent anymore.

Overall the film is decent, but it was a bit of letdown. The funniest character in the film is Jim's Dad. There's a scene in which he gets drunk and then high and it's fucking hilarious! The film really represents the feeling of kids who were in high school in the late 90s and how we are all adults now and we can't really fit into the high school world anymore. This is a realization that comes to Stifler in the film as well. It's a nice ending to the series and it comes full circle. I don't see them making another film and honestly they don't need to. "American Reunion" is the ending to the franchise in my opinion, the series started out with them as immature high school students and has ended with them realizing they are adults and it's time to act like them. The film was decent and worth a shot if you like the other films.

The Little Mermaid (1989)

2012-03-26T01:13:00.002-05:00

"Have you lost your senses completely? He's a human, you're a mermaid!"

After the success of "Oliver & Company" the Disney animation world was being reborn. The 80s were a hard time for Disney animation, "The Black Cauldron" was a major disappointment and they needed something to bring them out of it. While developing this film, the producers brought in songwriters Howard Ashman and Alan Menken (famous for the Off Broadway hit "The Little Shop of Horrors", as well as the 1986 film) to write the songs for the film. And magic was born...

"The Little Mermaid" is loosely based on the fairy tale of the same name. The premise was simple, a mermaid wants to be human, simple as that. What, they did is made the story enjoyable by creating loving and unforgettable characters. The voice talents of Jodi Benson and Kenneth Mars as Ariel and her father King Triton were fantastic choices. Benson can sing like no one's business and can bring a tear to your eye singing "Part of Your World". Mars can bring down the house with his powerhouse performance as King Triton. Mars has an incredibly booming voice that you won't forget.

Now, lets not forget the villain here. We have, Ursula the sea witch, not a mermaid by a half human, half octopus who has one of the best songs in the entire film. She is diabolical and she wants to rule the sea. She coaxes Ariel into thinking she is helping her, but in reality has her sign a contract saying if she can't get a human to give her a true love's kiss, she will be able to rule the sea. Pat Carroll voices Ursula (and would go on to voice her sister Morgana in the film's direct to video sequel) and gives it a real go. Her voice, believe me, you won't forget. And her rendition of "Poor Unfortunate Souls" (which is more exposition than song) is powerful.

The cast is rounded out by the legendary Buddy Hackett. Hackett voices Scuttle, a seagull who is, for lack of a better word, dumb. But, in the end Scuttle helps to save the day. This film, much like "Beauty & the Beast", can really suck you in. There are a few moments that can give you chills (like "Part of Your World") or the ending of the film. Much of this is due to Alan Menken's wonderful score (which he would receive his first of NINE Academy Awards for). The film is very much for anyone (don't let that "mermaid" in the title turn you away, boys), I loved the movie when I was a kid, and I still love the movie to this day. It was the first film in the now called "Disney Renaissance" and it was one of the more powerful entries. With a wonderful cast, great songs and really unforgettable moments, this film goes down in history as one of the best Disney films out there!

Beauty & the Beast (1991)

2012-03-26T00:55:00.003-05:00

"It's over, Beast! Belle is mine!"

During the 1980s, Disney animation was on rocky slopes. "The Black Cauldron" in 1985 really hurt the studio with it's dark undertones and scary imagery. The animators were moved off the Disney lot and basically forgotten about. Slowly but surely from 1986 to 1989 the studio moved back into major animation films and in 1989 they produced "The Little Mermaid" completely redeeming themselves and beginning what is now known as the "Disney Renaissance". There is a great documentary film all about this time period entitled "Waking Sleeping Beauty", I suggest you check it out!

So after the success of "The Little Mermaid", Disney continued on with their production of a story that Walt Disney himself tried to animate in the 1940s but failed to come up with a decent story for it, "Beauty & the Beast". The film is a touching love story between the odd ball (yet for beautiful) girl, Belle (voiced by Paige O'Hara) and The Beast (voiced by Robby Benson). After being cursed, The Beast is changed from a Prince to his hideous beast form as well as all his servants. He has a set amount of time to make someone fall in love with him before the curse is permanent. When Belle's father gets lost in the woods he winds up at the house of the Beast. Belle ventures into the woods looking for him only to make a deal with the Beast to let him go and take her instead.

This film is enchanting, absolutely wonderful. Needless to say, this is my personal favorite Disney film. I was 7-years-old when the film came out and remember going to the theater to see it. When the VHS came out I remember watching it over and over and over and over to the point where I could quote the movie verbatim. Everything about this film is wonderful, there really aren't any slow parts. The voice performances are great. There really aren't any really famous voice over actors in this, aside from Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Potts. And I think not having big stars in it really helped the film. You're not distracted by the voice of a big recognizable star in the film. The songs, written by the late Howard Ashman (who died before the film was completed) and Alan Menken are fantastic. The film begins with one of the biggest songs I've ever seen, "Belle". It's a song that begins with one person singing and by the end it has dozens of people singing and has told a complete story as well!

There are many times throughout the film that give me chills or even bring a tear to my eye. You can really get rolled up in the film and forget you're even watching a movie. I think that when a movie can do that then it works. It takes a lot to get someone to fall into a movie like that. This Disney film has tons of songs, I think it might have more songs than most other Disney movies. It's no surprise that Disney chose this to be their first Broadway musical and the musical is just as amazing as the film.

But, that aside, this film has gone down in history as the first animated film to be nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award (losing out to "The Silence of the Lambs"). And, honestly in my opinion it's still the only one to be nominated for that (in 2009, the Disney/Pixar film "Up" was nominated for Best Picture, but I really don't think it would have been nominated if the Academy hadn't extended the number of nominations from 5 to 10 that year, and since). The film won Academy Awards for the music and it won the Best Picture (Comedy or Musical) Golden Globe. It's a film that is timeless and will continue to entertain people for years to come. I'm glad this film was part of my childhood and I still enjoy seeing the film today. I HIGHLY suggest, if you haven't seen this film, to go out now and check it out!

Bridesmaids (2011)

2012-02-20T23:50:00.003-06:00

"This is the first time I've seen you ugly. And it makes me happy"

Let me begin by saying I didn't have the highest expectations for this movie going in. I had seen the preview in the beginning of the year and actually thought it looked really funny. I chose to pass on seeing it in the theater and even when it came out on DVD I passed for a while, just recently seeing it this week! The film is very basic, a girl (Maya Rudolph) is getting married and asks her best friend (Kristen Wiig) to be her maid of honor and everything goes wrong and that's where the humor lies. However, there is very little humor in this film. Lets begin...

First off, Kristen Wiig plays one of the most unlikable characters I've ever seen. Her character used to own a bakery called "Cake Baby" and it went under because of the economy. She lives with these very odd British people who literally annoy the living hell out of me. Throughout the entire film all her character does is complain about shitty her life is. She constantly puts herself down and it is very clear she hates herself. Why should I care about this character? Even when she finds a guy she still shuts him down and then expects him to come back to her.

The film is also just one joke the whole time. The film is basically a battle between Annie (Wiig) and Helen (Rose Byrne). Annie has been Lillian's (Rudolph) best friend since childhood, Helen has only known Lillian for 8 months. So the joke is that they are trying to outdo each other, which begins with one of the most painfully slow scenes in the entire movie. The scene is people giving speeches at Lillian's engagement party and as the maid of honor Annie gives her speech then Helen gives a speech trying to outdo Annie and they go back and forth trying to get the last word in. The scene goes on forever and isn't funny at all.

The film also has a pretty damn disgusting and unfunny scene involving food poisoning. Annie takes the girls to some Brazilian restaurant and of course they all get food poisoning while doing dress fittings. This leads to a very stupid scene involving all the girls either throwing up on each other or shitting in a sink or in the street. The scene is trying to be funny but it just fails and comes across as the worst bathroom humor I've ever seen, simply because the writers (Wiig and some other co-writer) don't get what they are doing.

Overall the film tries very hard to be the female "The Hangover" and it fails on every single aspect. There were very few funny scenes in this 2+ hour film. The scene in the jewelry store between Annie and a teenage girl is pretty funny and the scene where Annie and Helen are trying to get the guy Annie shut down to come back to her with their car was pretty funny as well. Overall, the funniest thing in the movie was the character played by Melissa McCarthy, this actress is absolutely hilarious and sadly she is not used enough in the film. Another note I'd like to make is that other than Wiig and Byrne, none of the other characters are utilized much at all. Maya Rudolph is pretty much pushed off to the side and then the other characters have a few lines and that's pretty much it. The film tries too hard to be funny and simply isn't. How this film was nominated for Academy Awards baffles me, especially the nomination for screenplay!

Rocky II (1979)

2012-02-04T22:02:00.003-06:00

"Yo, Adrian! I did it!"

Not many sequels can outdo their originals but in my opinion "Rocky II" did just this. Rocky went down in history winning 3 Academy Awards including the Best Picture Oscar for 1976. So, by the time Stallone decided to make a sequel to his blockbuster role, America was very familiar the Italian Stallion.

Rocky II takes place over the following year after the original film. After Rocky heals up from the fight in the first film he quickly spends his money. Unable to do commercials like he thought because he has a hard time reading, Rocky finds himself strapped for cash. His eye injury from the original film also takes it's toll. But when Apollo wants a re-match (feeling that people thought he didn't actually win the fight), Rocky wants to feed his desire to fight.

Rocky II has much more going on than the original one did. The love story between Rocky and Adrian is continued and develops more. The character of Rocky is much more developed in this film showing that Rocky isn't exactly a "smart" guy. He runs out spends all his money on stuff that he doesn't really need. He can't read and ends up getting fired from doing commercials, and he becomes very selfish when Apollo challenges him. He puts his wife and unborn child off to the side just so he can do what he wants and in the end he pays the cost. However, after everything that happens with Adrian I just don't understand how she just changes her mind like that. It was so important to her before he slipped into a coma, but afterward she was just like "Win!".

The movie has a really cool running sequence to "Gonna Fly Now" which encompasses hundreds of kids running with Rocky as he makes his way to the art museum. And the ending of the movie is just as iconic as the ending of the original film. The "Yo, Adrian! I did it!" part is just as amazing as the "Adrian!" ending of the original film. It really shows that to Rocky his wife is the only thing that matters to him.

Overall, the film plays out much more entertaining than the original film and this is coming from a huge fan of the original. Even the fight at the end film is much more entertaining, it's a thrilling fight, and as most people probably thought, Rocky wins, but honestly when you see the end of the fight, you're seriously on the edge of your seat even though you're pretty sure he's going to win.

Rocky (1976)

2012-01-31T23:50:00.002-06:00

"Cut me, Mick"

Before I post my review I want to let everyone out there know that I actually hate sports, a lot! I don't find them entertaining one bit, I am more of an arts person. That being said, Rocky is one of my favorite movies of all time!

Rocky follows the story of Rocky Balboa, a no one boxer who gets a once in a lifetime opportunity to fight the heavyweight champion of the world. Rocky was Sylvester Stallone's big break, after starring in a string of incredibly low budget films (including soft core porn). Stallone really fought for his vision to be seen and he really fought to star in the film and it proved he knew what he was doing. Rocky nabbed 10 Oscar nominations including Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay for Stallone. In the end the film walked away with 3 Oscars including the coveted Best Picture Oscar.

The film is incredibly moving and shows pure dedication. Stallone portrays Rocky as a warm hearted person who does what he has to, to get by in life. Rocky is collector for a loan shark but shows early on in the film that he has a heart when he lets one of the guys go even though he was told to break his thumbs. Rocky lives in a studio apartment and his only friends are 2 turtles and a fish. He spends his days trying to woo the sister of his friend Paulie, Adrian. The interesting thing about Rocky is that it's completely about the character of Rocky and not too much about the boxing event at the end of the film. When Rocky trains for the fight all he wants is to "go the distance" with Apollo Creed, he doesn't care about winning or losing, he simply wants to go the whole fight with him and in the end his efforts are proven when he loses the fight. And the amazing ending that everyone has parodied (Adrian!) is amazing because after all that, he doesn't care about losing or the press, all he wants is Adrian.

Stallone plays the role of Rocky as the most lovable guy in the world. He is very simple minded, but you love him for it. He continues to play the character like this throughout the entire series as well. The film series, and this one especially, are incredibly iconic. People travel to the Philadelphia Art Museum all the time just to run up the stairs (I've done it!) and the Rocky statue (which is presented in Rocky III) still stands at the art museum. The film is a part of American culture and it most definitely deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar!

Jason X (2001)

2012-01-26T22:18:00.002-06:00

"It's okay! He just wanted his machete back!"

So, in 1993 New Line Cinema obtained the rights to Jason Voorhees, and they chose to kill the character off once and for all in the film Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday. After that the studio decided to work on getting Freddy vs. Jason done and in theaters. 8 years later they still had nothing, but they were close, so they decided to revisit Jason and bring us a new film.

Jason X finds us met up with Jason Voorhees (played for the fourth and final time by Kane Hodder) once again as he is being readied to be put into cryo freeze because he can't be killed. When this happens, Jason stabs the person in charge of this subsequently freezing her as well. Jump 450 years later and the two are unfrozen and taken aboard the Grendel space ship. Needless to say, unfreezing Jason wasn't such a good idea and good old fashion killings begin.

The film is nothing more than a "popcorn flick", it really shouldn't be taken seriously. It's one of the weaker installments in the series but not at the worst (at least when he went to space he was actually in space most of the time, as opposed to say, Manhattan). The film has really terrible performances from the actors in the movie, and none of them are people you've heard of before or since. This isn't the first film in a horror series to send their killer to space (Leprechaun and Hellraiser anyone?), but it's always a mistake. What's the point of sending Jason to space? There really isn't one, except to try and use CGI as much as possible. That all being said, the film has some nice little nods to the other films, like how he just wants to use his machete as opposed to a new weapon and of course the reenacted Part VII virtual reality scene.

And of course even though the "uber" Jason scenes were really unneeded and only there as a novelty act, it's kind of bad ass to see Jason like that. Also, Kane Hodder IS Jason Voorhees, he's the only person to play the role more than once and he's also the best. He made the character his own and this film is a lasting tribute to the character, mainly because of his unwillingness to die.

Overall the film is incredibly goofy and over the top, but again it's really just there for entertainment purposes. You can take it as a Friday the 13th film or you can just take it as a film to enjoy and laugh at.

2011: A Year in Review

2011-12-31T00:03:00.007-06:00

Instead of doing my traditional top 10 and bottom 10 of 2011, I have chosen a different route. I feel that I haven't seen enough films this year to do a fair top 10 list, so I have decided instead to write about all the films I have seen this year.

2011 was not a very good year for film. It took me about 3 1/2 months to even see a new film at all. That film being Red Riding Hood, I was pleasantly surprised with this film. When I first saw the trailer I was split, it looked too much like "Twilight" and it was

even directed by the director of "Twilight", but the film was actually pretty good.

Following that came Scream 4 a film I was very much looking forward to and was slightly let down by. The film clearly didn't live up to what eve

ryone thought it would be, but the film was at least half way decent.

After that it was another month before I saw another film, that being The Hangover Part II. This film was great and it was the best film I had seen so far in the year. A lot of people complained that the film was too much like the original and I do agree with that, but at the same time there really wasn't anything different they could do. They kept the basic premise but added new things to it.

After that I'm not sure what I saw next but there were films during the summer like Cowboys & Aliens, Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and Final Destination 5 that I did go see in the theater. Cowboys & Aliens was another film I was looking forward to and that was a major disappointment. A very boring film that was incredibly predictable and as a friend of mine put it should have been called, "Cowboys with the Occasional Alien". Harry Potter wrapped up the story nicely and Final Destination 5 was a welcome addition after the major disappointment of the last film.

The biggest surprise of the summer was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which I thought was going to be terrible and it ended up really impressing me. The best film I saw in 2011 was surprisingly The Muppets. I was looking forward to the film and it really impressed me. I grew up watching "The Muppets" and this film really made me happy with it's good story and incredible soundtrack.

The film wasn't without it's definite terrible films. With such films as: No Strings Attached, Your Highness, The Green Hornet and Kevin Smith's terrible film Red State. With the exception of Your Highness none of the other films really looked any good anyways.

Other films I saw this year that I was pretty much indifferent on were A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas, which I thought would have been better, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which honestly I didn't expect much from and Jack & Jill, that looked funny and disappointed, Al Pacino really saved that film.

Overall, 2011 was a pretty disappointing year. I didn't see films like Captain America or Green Lantern yet, but I do plan on it. Once I see those films I will definitely review them and put them up.

Glee: The 3D Concert Movie (2011)

2011-12-28T16:14:00.002-06:00

"Don't stop believing"

"Glee" is a phenomenal TV series. It's kind of looked down on as being a tween series that is full of politics and gay undertones. However, I feel the series is actually really good. I find it funny and dramatic and the musical performances are outstanding. That being said, here we have "Glee: The 3D Concert Movie".

The concert footage is fun and entertaining. The movie is very simple it's a "mockumentary" / documentary. The Glee stuff is the mockumentary, since these are actors playing the characters who are putting on a concert. The rest of the footage is the documentary part. There are stories of teenagers who say that "Glee" has changed their lives (i.e. a gay teenager, a dwarf cheerleader, etc.). The performances are obviously the main part of the movie and they are also the best part. Most, if not all, the songs performed in the movie are songs they have performed on the series. So it's fun to see these amazing young performers do their thing on stage.

I feel that the movie is kind of odd, because the actors are playing their roles but they are performing a sold out concert. On the series the characters are "losers" and are constantly "slushed" (having a slushee thrown on them in the hallways of school) so it's kind of difficult to accept the characters being able to perform a concert like this. But I guess it's all suspense of disbelief. The movie is here solely to entertain and the movie does it well. One thing I don't like about concert documentaries is when they cut away from the concert to add other stupid crap I don't care about. I don't care about fans talking about the series or characters or how the show has changed their lives. The three stories of the different teenagers talking about their lives and the series, I feel wasn't really needed. I know that it's a special series to their lives and whatnot, but I don't care. I know the message of the TV series is that is that it's okay to be different and don't care what others say about you, but honestly the people who saw this or watch this want to see the performances.

The movie was entertaining and the performances were amazing. I feel this film probably didn't perform as well as the producers felt it would at the theaters because it's a concert film. Not many concert films perform incredibly well, so it's understandable that it didn't perform very well. Plus the movie was only in the theater for 2 weeks. And for some stupid reason they chose to present the film in 3D. There was absolutely no reason to release this film in 3D. There was no part in the movie where 3D was utilized well at all. That being said, the movie is entertaining very much. Also, stay after the credits for an additional performance!

The Smurfs (2011)

2011-12-04T15:23:00.002-06:00

"You smurfed with the wrong girl!"

In the same vain of "Scooby-Doo", "The Flintstones" and "The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle" Sony Pictures has decided to bring another classic animated TV series to the big screen. Did it work or not?

"The Smurfs" was a Hanna-Barbera animated series that aired during the 1980s. It was an incredibly popular series, so it made sense to bring the series to the big screen. The only problem with that is that Sony Pictures decided to bring the characters to the "real world" for no real reason. The Smurfs wind up in New York City after trying to escape Gargamel (brilliantly played by Hank Azaria) during the Festival of the Blue Moon. When they get there, Clumsy winds up falling into a box and taken home by Patrick Winslow (Neil Patrick Harris), once there Patrick and his pregnant wife, Grace (Jayma Mays) decide to try and help the Smurfs figure out how to get back to their own world. Meanwhile, Patrick is trying to keep his job by making up an advertisement for his pushy boss.

The movie plays out very cliched and feels like a cross of "Alvin & the Chipmunks" and "Enchanted". The story line is incredibly basic and nothing to special comes from it. At the same time the movie has some really funny moments, mostly from Azaria as Gargamel. The movie has tons of moments where the characters don't understand basic things from the real world and humorous things follow (i.e. Gargamel not knowing what a Port-a-Potty is), but some of these fall on their faces. There are many moments in which the characters do some really stupid things that are meant to be funny but in the long run feel forced or even juvenile. For example, there is a moment when Smurfette (played by Katy Perry) gets a new dress and stands over a vent and has a little Marilyn Monroe moment. As much as I enjoy Perry (and her portrayal in this film) her acting was pretty awful during this scene and then they have to throw in the Scottish Smurf deliberately standing on the vent having the air blow up his kilt. The whole sequence was pretty terrible and just throwing in that last bit felt like an incredibly cheap joke for children.

Even though the movie had plenty of cliched moments, I felt the movie was entertaining and deserves a good look. I did enjoy how they included the original backstory of Smurfette the way it was in the cartoon series. I did like how they included the mentioning of "Peyo" who created the Smurfs comics. I loved how they mentioned the theme song being annoying, since that's been a pretty popular statement since the series originally aired. Overall, I felt the movie was funny, it didn't stoop down to bathroom humor like many other children's movies do nowadays. I think the movie (and many others like this) get a bad rap because it is based on a popular TV series and people have a preconceived notion about it. Honestly, I think everyone should give it a shot.

A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011)

2011-12-01T23:55:00.002-06:00

"I have to stay here and smoke this weed, otherwise I won't get high"

Harold & Kumar have come a long way since they made their way to a White Castle way back in 2004. The H&K movies are known for their extreme comedy and their marijuana jokes. This special Christmas installment doesn't lack any of those, but it falls short of the previous 2 installments.

The film has a pretty simple plot, Harold has his in-laws over and his father-in-law wants the perfect Christmas tree. Harold and Kumar haven't seen much of each other since Harold got married and Kumar is living on his own. His girlfriend, Vanessa, shows up to tell him she's pregnant, shortly after that he has a packaged delivered to him that is supposed to go to Harold. Kumar makes a trip to Harold's and they open the box to discover a giant "joint", somehow the joint falls in the "perfect" tree and burns down. And so begins the journey of Harold & Kumar trying to find a replacement tree before his wife & father-in-law return from midnight mass.

The plot is always pretty simple in these movies but for whatever reason this film just didn't feel like a H&K movie. There's a running gag in the movie of a baby getting high on pretty much every drug out there (marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, etc.) which was pretty funny, but honestly had run its course by the end of the film. It felt to me that the drug humor was incredibly toned down and the "adult" humor was toned up. This is a very "adult" Christmas movie. There's even a part in the movie that reflects the scene in "A Christmas Story" where the little boy gets his tongue stuck to a pole, but it wasn't a tongue in this film.

Finally I felt that this movie didn't need to be made in 3D at all. They used the 3D far too much and way to obviously. There were quite a few times in the movie when something was thrown at the screen and it would slow down in bullet time. It was so incredibly unneeded and stupid. I have a feeling that in 10 years time we'll be looking at this movie like we looked at the 80s 3D movies back in the 90s and think the movies were simply made to cash in on 3D. This film could have worked just fine without the 3D.

Overall I enjoyed the film, but I felt that it lacked something that the other 2 films had. Would I include this in my annual Christmas viewing? I don't think so, but a 2nd viewing could change all of that.

The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

2011-11-27T23:41:00.002-06:00

"Stop and look around you, the glory that you see, is born again each day, don't let it slip away, how precious life can be!"

It had been 8 years since a Muppet movie had been released and only 2 years since Jim Henson had sadly passed away. But the movie that Jim Henson had originally wanted to be made was going to be made as a lasting tribute to him. "The Muppet Christmas Carol" was the first Muppet project produced after Jim Henson had died as well as Muppet performer Richard Hunt (performer of Scooter among others) who died in 1992. But what was produced was better than many probably would have expected.

The movie is very simple, a retelling of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, done a million times over but this one actually has Gonzo (performed by Dave Goelz) and Rizzo the Rat (performed by Steve Whitmire) narrating the film from within the film. Scrooge is played by Michael Caine and the film is directed by Brian Henson (Jim Henson's son). The critical role of Kermit (previously performed by Jim Henson) was handed off to Steve Whitmire and the role is done perfectly!

I feel the film works incredibly well because the environment they produce is perfect. Michael Caine was the best choice for Scrooge, the roles of the Muppets are wisely chosen. I think the best Muppet casting is Statler and Waldorf as Marley (& Marley) and they get their chances of heckling Scrooge! The songs are amazing including the "missing" song of "When Love is Gone" (missing for some reason from the widescreen version of the film on the DVD but on the full screen version). The songs are touching and can actually work very well as simply Christmas songs (like "It Feels Like Christmas" and "One More Sleep Till Christmas").

I think this is a very good tribute to Jim Henson (the film is dedicated to Henson and Hunt), out of respect Henson's "signature" character of Rowlf does not speak (nor does Dr. Teeth) and Hunt's characters of Scooter and Janice are silent as well (not to be heard again until "Muppets From Space" for Scooter and "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" for Janice). The movie is a pretty damn close adaptation of the novel and goes down as my personal favorite version of the story.

The Muppets (2011)

2011-11-27T23:23:00.003-06:00

"Are you a Muppet or a man?"

It's been 12 years since The Muppets have graced the silver screen and they have finally returned. The movie was surprisingly amazing and incredibly touching especially for anyone who grew up with The Muppets. I grew up during a time when The Muppets were pretty damn popular. During the 90s The Muppets were popular enough to have 3 films come out as well as a revival of "The Muppet Show" in the incarnation of "Muppets Tonight". I also grew up with "Muppet Babies" as well as the movies that came before I was born. Sadly, after 1999's "Muppets From Space" the franchise died out and The Muppets were relegated to TV movies and direct-to-video movies.

The movie follows Gary (Jason Segal) and his brother Walter (a Muppet played by Peter Linz) on their way to Los Angeles where Walter wants badly to go on a tour of the Muppet Studios. Along for the ride is Mary (Amy Adams) who is Gary's girlfriend, who is going to L.A. to spend her anniversary with Gary. When they get there they realize the Muppet Studio is shambles and the theater is dire need of help when Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) decides to buy the studio & theater to tear them and dig for oil. So Gary & Walter go on a trip to find Kermit (played by Steve Whitmire) and get him to get the team back together and try and get the money to buy the theater back.

The movie has tons of great jokes that really made me laugh out loud. The songs were great, the story was very interesting and it ties the movies to the original TV show. There were a lot of jokes that I honestly don't think kids would get but it had jokes for kids too. I love movies that have jokes for both adults and children. The movie wasn't without it's downfalls. The big thing I didn't like about the movie is that I think the movie didn't really need the side story of Gary & Mary. Every time they cut back to that story I felt like it took you out of what was going on in the movie. I honestly didn't care about them and their relationship, it felt like it was out of place in this movie. I think Eric Jacobson who played Fozzie and Miss Piggy (sadly replacing Frank Oz, who opting out of returning) does not do a very good job as Fozzie. He's fine as Miss Piggy, but his voice is too high for Fozzie, I cringed a few times hearing his voice. And finally, I felt Gronzo was very left out of this movie. After the movie was over and I turned to friend and said this movie needed more Gonzo.

The new added Muppet of Walter I felt worked very well. I had a feeling he would be annoying and/or not fit well but he fit well with the original Muppets. He ends the show with an interesting little bit, but nothing takes away from the "Rainbow Connection" finale that is performed by all the Muppets and really gave me chills and brought a tear to my eye. I'm a self proclaimed Muppet fan and have loved all the movies and TV shows and seeing that song performed by all the Muppets really was touching and moving.

Overall I consider this as the best movie I've seen in 2011. It's got everything I could possibly ask for in a Muppet movie and I am very pleased with what I saw.

Jurassic Park (1993)

2011-10-27T01:05:00.002-05:00

"If the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' breaks down the pirates don't eat the tourists!"

By 1993, Steven Spielberg had already proven himself as a talented film director. He had directed some of the biggest films of all time and continued to prove himself; 1993 would be no different. Just like he had in 1975 with "Jaws", he chose a popular novel and made it into a blockbuster film. That book was "Jurassic Park" written by the late Michael Crichton. The rest is history.

The film follows John Hammond who has built a theme park with real live dinosaurs created through DNA found from fossilized misquotes. He invites a team of scientists to the park before it is officially opened to get an idea from them how amazing the park is. But there's a traitor in the midsts who wants to steal the DNA samples from Jurassic Park to make a nice little profit. While trying to do this the fences are brought down and the dinosaurs get out!

This film is one of my absolute favorites. It's an amazingly fun adventure film. Is the film violent? Yes and no, there are a lot of killings in the movie but for the most part most of them are either off screen or there is something blocking most of the death. Is the movie scary? Yes it is, and I think that's what makes this movie fun to watch. Even now, 18 years after it was released it still is very entertaining to watch. The CGI does look slightly dated (especially the scene where we see the first dinosaur) but overall I feel it holds up pretty well. The whole idea is very entertaining and it holds your attention for the whole 2 hour ride. There's pretty much no lag time at all. The casting was spot on, especially that of Jeff Goldblum playing Dr. Ian Malcolm. I don't know what it is, but I can't get enough of Jeff Goldblum! He's just a great actor, in my opinion!

This film was incredibly successful and it spawned 2 sequels. Ever since "Jurassic Park III" came out in 2001 there have been rumors of a 4th film and I hope one day we eventually get one.

Red State (2011)

2011-09-03T14:35:00.003-05:00

"I fear God, you better believe I fear God"

Kevin Smith hasn't impressed me since "Zack & Miri Make a Porno" way back in 2007. His 2010 outing with Bruce Willis & Tracy Morgan known as "Cop Out" fully let me down and his 2011 outing known as "Red State" followed suit and goes down as Smith's worst film to date.

The film is basically about this cult (for lack of a better word) who kills people for being immoral. There's nothing more to the film than that. 3 teenagers go out to the middle of nowhere where some woman has promised to have sex with all of them at the same time. Soon they are drugged and one of them wakes up in a cage. What follows is the longest and most boring monologue I've ever seen. Michael Parks plays a preacher character who goes on and on about immorality and how everyone should fear God. It takes about 3 1/2 seconds to realize that this is all a religious thing and that this is more of a cult than anything else. Well, they kill some guy for being gay and then one of the 3 teenagers breaks free finding a room full of guns and ammo. Once he shoots his gun a passing by police officer calls for backup and the craziness ensues. This is where John Goodman comes in. Goodman is one of my most favorite actors but sadly his performance isn't that great. Father time hasn't been too good to this man and he looks pretty bad. And as my brother put it and I believed it beforehand, he can't yell anymore; and he sure can't!

The movie is labeled as a horror film, but I don't think it is. I can't really tell you what kind of genre it is, but it's not really a horror film. Almost everyone in the movie dies and the movie is flat out boring. Nothing really happens in the movie, a majority of the film is a shootout between the crazy cult people and the ATF. There's a few semi shocking moments but overall Smith fails to impress me with this movie.

Going back to the boring monologue, it's surprises me how much Smith's own writing has changed in the past 15 years. His early movies were really well done writing wise and "Chasing Amy" still stands as my favorite screenplay ever. Why? Because the dialogue flows so well and the acting is great. In "Red State" the dialogue is boring and doesn't do anything for me. The acting is good, Michael Parks is really good in this movie, but the dialogue is flat and full of shit I just don't care about.

Kevin Smith hasn't had a good movie in 4 years and hasn't had a really great movie in 12 years. The last time he dealt with religion was with "Dogma" in 1999 and it was greatly done and entertaining, this time he decides to deal with religion and the government and it just doesn't work. The film ends [SPOILER!!] with the government admitting that they are deciding to treat most people they don't like as terrorists and taking them out. That's what they were doing with the cult. However, the cult fired on them and killed many of them so they had every right to attack them, plus the cult killed a few people in town for no real reason.

Needless to say the movie didn't do anything for me, and I consider this as Smith's worst film to date. I really hope that he can redeem himself at some point, but I feel that this 15 minutes of fame were over a long time ago.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

2011-09-02T14:45:00.003-05:00

"You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them! Bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness!"

So, when Episode I came out in 1999 I personally was looking more forward to Episode III for one simple reason, I knew it was going to be incredibly dark. Everyone knew that Episode III was going to have the lightsaber battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan and we knew that Anakin would become Darth Vader as well. So we were all looking forward to it. And, for once, with the prequels, I wasn't let down.

Episode III was just as dark as I had hoped and more. It was so dark that it was the only Star Wars film to receive a PG-13 rating. And it had to be dark, Darth Vader is portrayed as a terrible, horrible person who kills whoever gets in his way, so his origin had to be dark. Though you don't see it, Anakin kills almost everyone in the Jedi temple including small children (younglings as they call them). So needless to say the film was pretty damn dark.

The main story is about Anakin and his nightmare about Padme dying in childbirth. Since he had nightmares of his mother dying in Episode II and then it came true, he is very worried about this nightmare coming true. He needs to figure out a way to save Padme. Chancellor Palpatine uses this to his advantage and tells Anakin lies about learning ways of prolonging life if he simply turns to the dark side (without using those words, of course). Well, he finally turns to the dark side helping Palpatine kill Mace Windu. After that the killing begins!

The movie acts as a very good conclusion to the prequel trilogy and the ending of the film ties together the two trilogies pretty well. Though the film is damn good, I have to say there are a few things that makes the film suffer. One of them being the way Padme dies. They literally say in the film that she has "lost the will to live", seriously? Because Anakin turns to the dark side she just decides to stop living? They even claim they have no clue why she is dying. Such a stupid excuse. And why did she have to die? Couldn't she have just left the area and taken the twins with her? Also, speaking of twins, her on screen pregnancy was pretty craptacular. Look at the size of the twins she gives birth to, place them next to each other and there is no way she was carrying both of those twins! That just bothered me.

Oh, and who can forget the infamous "NOOOOO" that Darth Vader yells out after he finds out that Padme is dead. Darth Vader is the baddest motherfucker in the galaxy and he starts out with the big pussy reaction of "NOOOO"?? I honestly don't think George Lucas has ever even seen the original films, even though he made them, I don't think he's actually seen them. Also, I don't think the story of Anakin trying to save Padme as the reason he turned was kind of lame, but I guess Lucas really doesn't know how to do anything other than make fanboys come in their pants.

Overall, I rank this film just under Empire as the 2nd best Star Wars film, simply for the dark undertones and the fantastic acting, mostly from Ewan McGregor as Obi-Wan.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

2011-08-29T01:34:00.002-05:00

"Someday I will be the most powerful Jedi ever"

Okay, so the utter disappointment in Episode I didn't hurt its box office whatsoever. We all knew Episode II was coming and we all knew it would be in 2002. The only thing we could all do was wait, and hope it would be better than Episode I. I remember in the fall of 2001 I went to see "Monsters Inc." solely because the Episode II teaser was attached to it. I was completely let down when the teaser was seriously just Darth Vader breathing. And before I can say anything else, why the fuck was it just that?? Darth Vader doesn't even make an appearance until the very end of Episode III, everyone knew Vader was not going to be in Episode II. Fucking stupid teaser.

Anyway the day came, I was 18 and I went to see the midnight showing, I was not allowed to see the midnight showing of Episode I cause my mother wouldn't allow me to be up that late on a school night, well I was still in high school and I said fuck it. I saw the movie... and I almost threw up! Personally, Episode II is the WORST in the entire series. The movie sucks so bad even the title was fucking retarded! First off, the movie is boring, none of the other films are boring but this one is. Second, they cast Hayden Christensen who couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. I seriously had no clue that George Lucas was capable of casting yet another awful actor in such an iconic role, but he sure did it!

This movie was supposed to do two things: show the romance between Anakin and Padme, and show the beginning of the evil side of Anakin. Well, they accomplished the first one and they did so badly they are basically rubbing it in your face. The second one was also accomplished but in a really crappy way. Yeah, Anakin went nuts when his mother dies in his arms and he kills all the Sand People in that little camp. Fine. But, instead of coming off as angry and evil he comes off much more as asshole then anything else. I didn't feel any sympathy for him when his mother died, I seriously couldn't care less, because George Lucas didn't make me care about him at all. And why is that? Because of his shitty half assed dialogue. Oh, and by the way, this movie has to have the worst line of dialogue I've ever seen in my life! And the line is from Anakin and goes like this:

"Master Obi-Wan would be very grumpy if he found me doing this"

I paraphrased that but the line is "very grumpy" for sure. Very grumpy?? Seriously? This man becomes the intergalactic Hitler and he says "very grumpy"?? Awful, awful dialogue and to make matter worse it was badly delivered too! Also, I feel Natalie Portman (whom I feel is actually pretty good in these films) was really bad in this movie. I love Natalie Portman but her performance in this film was just as bad as anybody else's.

The movie ends with 2 gigantic battle sequences. One between all the Jedi's and pretty much everyone else and the other between Obi-Wan, Anakin & Yoda and Count Dooku (played by the legendary Christopher Lee). Well, Anakin gets beaten like the bitch he is and Yoda comes in and saves the day. I remember being in the theater and when Yoda shows up and whips out his light saber, I yelled out "Oh shit! He's gonna get fucked up!" (Star Wars midnight screenings are always the best). So the movie ends and for some reason Anakin has some HUGE robotic arm to replace the arm he lost in his fight with Count Dooku. I'm not kidding, the arm just seems overly too big for his body. It's not that way in Episode III.

If I hadn't known that Episode III was going to be the darkest of the series, I might not have wanted to keep going after this film. This film just sucks, everything in it sucks. There's nothing exciting about this film at all. It's not even "so bad, it's good" nope, nothing. I admit I saw the film twice in the theater because I was going to try and see the Star Wars films as many times as I could (I saw Episode I three times in the theater) but twice was enough. The second time I remember wanting to leave about 10 minutes in. I've tried watching all 6 films in one day, but I can NEVER get all the way through Episode II without turning it off for a long while.