AMB Reviews

Fantastic Mr. Fox: 9/10 Stars

Release Date: November 25, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for action, smoking and slang humor. Several references to alcohol. Brief smoking. Action includes explosions and shootings (most of it is played for laughs, though).

Review:

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" doesn't look too promising by the trailer. This has taught me to never judge a movie by its trailer (most of the time)...

In Short:

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" is based off a classic book by Roald Dahl that I absolutely loved as a child. Now, Wes Anderson brings it to life with a type of animation never done before. Very clear and detailed, it's not Pixar but neither is it "Wallace and Gromit." Rather it seems somewhat like puppets, but still an animation. Whatever its style, it amazed me none the less. George Clooney and Meryl Streep give their voice talents to the main stars, as Mr. Fox rallies up the help of his other animal friends to take down three very nasty farmers. This movie could've been done so many other ways, but none as good as this. Anderson offers us a witty, fast paced, and very dazzling depiction of a great book with a possibly even greater movie. "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is an instant classic and probably the best animated movie of the entire year.

In Full:

Mr. Fox and Mrs. Fox live comfortably underground with their child, Ash. But Mr. Fox wants more. After giving up his dream of hunting birds to write for the newspaper, he wants to feel more... alive. So he moves above ground up in a tree with his family... right next to three of the meanest farmers in town. Now, with the help of his other animal friends, he'll encounter dangerous night missions to try and steal the farmer's food. But the farmers don't like to be messed with, as they start messing back with Mr. Fox. It's action filled, hilarious and very fast moving. It clocks in at only 87 minutes, making it a delight for both kids and adults, as there's humor here for all. I can't remember much of the book, but I sure as heck know that Roald Dahl himself would be proud of this major achievement.

George Clooney leads the cast as "Fantastic Mr. Fox." I haven't seen Clooney in much, but here, he fit the role just perfectly. A strong, daredevilish, adventure loving... fox. Meryl Streep lends her voice as Mrs. Fox, and plays a dedicated mother who borders on knowing how to keep her family safe, but also giving Mr. Fox the adventure that he longs for. Bill Murrary plays "Badger," a strict and obedient creature. You never really know if he's a mayor or a realtor or just someone with a lot of power, but he voices his character with the firmness you'd expect from such a person. Owen Wilson is also given a microscopic role as the Coach, and is really only on screen for about three minutes. However... he's Owen Wilson. No matter how small a role, he never fails at making you laugh.

Words can't describe the visuals in this film. They were unlike anything ever done before. They're pretty much impossible to describe. To try my best, I'd use these words: dazzling, remarkable, groundbreaking, and absolutely gorgeous. The characters look somewhat like puppets, but then again, you still can tell that they're animated. The backgrounds are incredibly simple, yet added so much. If you pay attention, there's also many minute details that make the entire movie go round. It isn't Dreamworks Animation, nor is it Pixar. It's not the clay-style animation of "Wallace and Gromit," or the beautiful 2-D animation from Disney. It's completely new and unique, and let me just say: more, please!

The movie occasionally lingered, however, in places for a bit too long. Towards the end, though it kept me laughing throughout, several scenes verged a bit on overlong and overdone. They seemed to want to keep the laughs going, but there's only so much humor that one scene can hold. This didn't come along very often, part of the reason why I gave this film 9 stars, but it was still there. Littler ones won't notice it, as they'll be too engaged in the film's breathtaking appearance, but the humor was sometimes a bit overdone. Other than that, I wouldn't be able to find another con in this movie to save my life.

"Fantastic Mr. Fox" is a masterpiece. Plain and simple. It has made new landings and founded new places that I never thought animation would be able to go. I can't say much more, as the animation itself is too hard to describe. It was so utterly breathtaking, yet so plainly simple, that it had my eyes begging for more. Everything flowed together to form a gem of a movie, with perfect voicing and a sassy storyline. The lines were rapid and witty, the air always kept feeling a bit claustrophobic. It moved along at the speed of a racecar, leaving you wanting more at the end credits. This movie was rightly named... it truly is fantastic.

Old Dogs: 5.5/10 Stars

Release Date: November 25, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for some mild rude humor. Several suggestive jokes are sure to go right over the heads of littler ones. A couple scenes of gross out/slapstick humor (nothing that hasn't been done before).

Review:

I didn't really know what to think when I sat down in the early screening of this film, but I did know that the trailer was not promising...

In Short:

"Old Dogs" stars two of my least favorite actors: John Travolta and Robin Williams. They play two best friends who are close to breaking into a great business deal. But when Dan (Williams) is asked to have lunch with his ex-wife, he realizes that maybe he still has feelings for her. And there's one other problem: she has two kids. His kids. And when she's in desperate need of a two-week babysitter, he accepts the job on impulse. Now he counts down the days when he is free from the challenging and often hilarious problems the kids bring about. But along the way, maybe he and his friend, Charlie (Travolta) will learn a few life lessons. It's corny, yes. But it's also quite funny. It's stupid, yes. But it also left me smiling. The acting was pretty decent, even though the dialogue bordered on stupid. It's no gem, but it's funny and... well, that's about it.

In Full:

Dan thought he had it all. That is, until he went through two divorces in the time span of 24 hours. His friend, Charlie, has never had a "real" girl in his life, and the two only have work to rely on. They're right on the brink of a huge business deal. That is, until Dan's ex-wife asks him out for lunch. Finds out, they might have feelings left for each other after all. Oh... and she has two kids. His kids. And when she is sent to jail for two weeks, she is in desperate need of a babysitter. Dan accepts and then realizes his mistake: he doesn't know how to take care of kids. At all. The rest of the movie follows Dan and Charlie's crazy adventures with the two youngsters, as they get themselves into many hilarious situations and even learn some good lessons. It's all very corny, predictable, unoriginal and filled with the typical "slapstick" humor. That being said, it had a decent pace and was quite humorous, despite its lack of originality.

I can't say that I'm a fan of John Travolta or Robin Williams. Williams is getting old and is just losing his humorous touch, while Travolta just never hit me as a good actor. Here, however, I tried to leave that behind me, and found them to turn in good performances. They weren't earth shattering but they weren't horrible either. The script they were given wasn't horrible either, but it just didn't give them much to work with. But these two are experienced actors. They did the best they could with what they were given, and though it still hasn't changed my opinion on them, this is one film that I won't hold against them. Kelly Preston and Seth Green turn in smaller roles that ended up quite cardboard and corny.

Walking into this movie, I could almost predict what I was going to see: slapstick and gross out humor with some corny "Disney-fied" morals thrown in the mix. Is that what I got? You can count on it. Now, many times this ended up being quite funny. But don't expect anything new. The visuals were typical. Trips to the tanning salon, a violent game of ultimate frisbee, shooting and burning down statues, and hitting people in the crotch with golf balls. You ask for it and this movie has it. It's typical stuf with typical visuals set in the midst of a busy city. Nothing stood out, but then again, nothing really stood back. Everything just was.

As I mentioned above, the dialogue was mostly wooden, the humor unoriginal, and the plot predictable. This is Disney. As corny as most of it was, it did leave us with the importance of family and friendship. Dan and Charlie exhibit an example of two great friends who make mistakes. They're imperfect beings like all of us, but still show the strength others can bring us. Dan's kids also help him realizes that maybe there is more to life than just his work. Maybe taking time to teach his kid how to ride a bike or sit down and have a tea party with his daughter is more important than blowing them off for a conference call. It's stuff we've all heard before, but it was nice to hear it once again, as it's all completely true.

"Old Dogs" is not meant to blow away. It's not meant to astound. Like "The Shaggy Dog" before it, Disney offers us a simple, corny, unoriginal, yet quite funny and touching movie about family and friends. It gives us nothing new, but it still tastes somewhat good. Like your favorite food, you can eat as much as you want, and still enjoy it. "Old Dogs" is like that. It's not as good as the first ten times we saw the same type of plot being offered, but it still remains humorous and cute. It's quite stupid in many parts, but it's a family friendly movie that will make you smile. And sometimes that's all a movie needs to do. Not all the time, but in this case, it's all that it can do. It may not be enough for some, but it should be just enough for a family wanting a laugh.

New Moon: 8/10 Stars

Release Date: November 20, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for some violence and action. Several vampires are slammed into floors and walls, thrown about, and severely injured (bloodless). A girl is shown with a bloody arm. Several bloodless yet intense fights between werewolves. A girl goes cliff diving and nearly drowns, and is also flung off a motorcycle (minimal blood). Several passionate kisses.

Review:

Let me first tell you that "New Moon," the novel, was my least favorite in the series. However, this movie may have surpassed it...

In Short:

"New Moon" takes place after Twilight: Bella and Edward are desperately in love... for now. The movie starts off on Bella's birthday. Everyone knows she hates celebrating it, but the Cullens give her a huge bash anyways. It goes downwards from there, though, when Bella gets a paper cut and Jasper almost attacks her. Edward, feeling guilty, leaves Bella, declaring it the "last time you'll ever see me again." Bella, devastated, looks to her friend, Jacob, for help. But there's some things she doesn't even know about Jacob. And the fact that Jacob is also a huge, fierce werewolf that is against all vampires may up the tension a tad bit. Overall, the movie was faithful to the book and most definitely surpassed the original. The camera-work was not shaky this time around and the special effects ten times better. The acting still felt robotic to me, but as a whole, "New Moon" was entertaining.

In Full:

"New Moon" begins on Bella's birthday. She hates making a big deal out of it, but Alice Cullen couldn't resist throwing her a huge celebration. But when Bella cuts herself and Jasper tries to attack her, you can guess where it goes from there. From then on, Edward feels guilty about not always being able to protect her, and finally decides to leave her... forever. Bella, depressed and alone, seeks comfort in her best friend, Jacob Black. Though they at first share many good times, when Jaco turns out to be a werewolf (who hates all vampires), the tension and suspense in the story is tightened. Of course, if Edward never came back, there wouldn't be any third of fourth stories, but all in good time. In the end, the plot stayed on close track with the book, just like its predecessor, and kept a good flow that had me entertained throughout.

The acting is where things begin to slow down. Though I like Kristen Stewart and find her to be a mature actress with an impressive resume (especially seeing her age), the dialogue she was given bordered on weak. She did well with what she was given, and beat her performance in "Twilight," but it still felt a bit robotic. Speaking of robotic... can you say Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner? Girls are going to shoot me for saying this, but I care more about how many times they rip off their shirts in slow motion. They just aren't very good actors. Lautner takes up more of the screen this time around, and though he did better than his previous attempt at Jacob, he still was very... corny. Pattinson was even more so, delivering his lines in such a formulaic and cardboard way. Dakota Fanning, however, turns in a very brief yet stunning performance as an evil vampire, Jane. The rest of the cast from "Twilight" returned, but none are given too much to do.

Things speed up again when we reach this film's visuals. Though I did enjoy "Twilight," it felt like the work of amateurs, and the handheld camera work didn't do the book justice. This time around, however, we are given a steady camera with great special effects. The production budget must've been higher, as the action scenes that were in this movie were three times better than "Twilight." The introduction of the werewolves added more excitement to the screen, and towards the end, when Bella and Edward visit a group of nasty vampires, the special effects really get a chance to show off. I tired of the almost constant action scenes filmed in slow motion, but overall, the visuals were a triumph compared to the weak and draggy ones of the first.

What I also liked was how similar the movie was to the book. Yes, I have read them. All four. Once (just to clarify). I found them all quite enjoyable, but not amazing enough to re-read seventeen times like the rest of the world. "New Moon" was actually my least favorite, as after Edward left Bella, it slowly slid downwards, becoming more dry with each chapter. The movie, however, doesn't have hundreds and hundreds of pages to waste. This movie is two hours long, and spends its time wisely following key points in the book. Sure, they added in a few action scenes here and there, but it was only to keep up the suspenseful flow and keep some of the males entertained. Yes... there is both romance and action in this one, making it a bigger appeal to both sexes.

I attended "New Moon" with seven other girls. The moment the lights dimmed, the theater erupted with screams, while I sat there awkwardly, waiting for it to start. I felt quite out of place. However... "New Moon" is not just for girls. Though that is where the main fan base lies, guys should find something enjoyable here, whether it be the eye-popping werewolves or the suspenseful climax. Yes, the acting was wooden and quite unbearable at times. Yes, at times this movie just felt formulaic and corny. But on the other hand, it followed the book's path almost completely, the special effects have definitely improved, and the whole direction of the movie has just... improved. A lot. Fans of "Twilight" will most definitely find something to love here, and even those who didn't care for the movie should be able to tell that this movie is different from its predecessor. And in this case, that's a good thing. In this case, it means that "New Moon" tromps "Twilight" (movie-wise.)

The Blind Side: 9.5/10 Stars

Release Date: November 20, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for one scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references. A brief car crash (a boy is seen with some blood covering his shirt). A brief lived fight with no blood, but lots of pushing, shoving, punching, and a gun shot (no one shot). A married couple make out and sex is implied. The main character's mother is said to be a drug addict.

Review:

Let me just say that I was quite a happy camper when I received a free ticket for an early screening to this film (seeing that Sandra Bullock is my favorite actress)...

In Short:

"The Blind Side" is marketed as a sports movie. Let me just tell you that it's so much more than that, with the sports aspect put off to the side. This movie tells the tender, true story of a homeless teen, "Big Mike," who is taken in by a loving family. The mother of the family, Leigh Anne, slowly helps him raise his grades and try out for spring football. Of course, he ends up becoming an all-star player, but that's later on. The movie really focuses on Mike's heartbreaking past and how Leigh Anne helps him come to terms with it and move on with his future. It had me engrossed me from the start, and left me feeling uplifted. Sandra Bullock turns in one of the best performances of his career, as well as the downright best movie of her career.

In Full:

Michael Oher didn't start off as an all-star offensive left tackle. In fact, he started off with a drug addict for a mother, and after he was taken from her, it was only a matter of so many new schools before he just stopped trying. That all changes when Leigh Anne Touhy and her family take him in for "just one night." However, as their family grows closer to him, he slowly becomes a bigger part of their family. Though his GPA sits at 0.6, the Touhys help him raise it up to try out for football. From then on, it's just a matter of time before he learns the skills of the game and takes off from there. Though it's labeled as a sports movie... don't be fooled. There's only one football game in the whole movie. Me, not a huge fan of sports movies, found that quite refreshing, as the director chose to focus more on the characters and their relationships, rather than more football games.

Sandra Bullock is my absolute favorite actress of all time. Though I had thought her best performance came in "Hope Floats," after viewing this, I have to reconsider. Here, she plays a strong, independent and did I mention strong character. Her role, based on a real woman, is fierce and not afraid to tackle a challenge. She looks fear right in the eye, learning from the best (aka Amelia Earhart). Tim McGraw turns in a solid performance as her husband. Though he's really not given much to do here, he perfects what he's given. Quinton Aaron turns in his sophomore performance here as Oher, and though he isn't given many speaking parts, he was just the right person for the part. Kathy Bates rounds up the wonderful supporting cast.

This is a simple movie, visual-wise. This film was shot in Georgia, and there's nothing much to it. This isn't a huge budget, mind blowing visuals type film. The director cared more to dive into human emotions rather than show off an impressive budget. The movie had an underlying message of how much we take for granted. Once scene involves a lady complaining about an $18 salad, while Leigh Anne slowly learns that Big Mike never even had his own bed before. In the end, though she changes Mike's life for the better, he also changes her's in many good ways. It's an uplifting type movie that, though might make you cry in several spots, will leave you with a feeling that what you just watched was worthwile and inspiring.

If I was to find something negative about this film, it would take all day. There was simply nothing that stuck out to me that brought the film down. I'm a critic... I pick up on these things quickly, but I can honestly say that "The Blind Side" is a movie that is pure, fresh, funny, heartwarming, and at times, heartbreaking. The director captured the emotion perfectly for the film. The cast was spot-on, and the story inspiring. The script was well-written and though the movie did clock in around 2 hours, it is completely worth it. The only problem that some may find with it, is that it doesn't spend too much time focused on sports. For me, that was a pro, but it could be taken as a con for others.

In the end, "The Blind Side" has ended up as my third favorite movie of all time (following behind "The Dark Knight" and "Rachel Getting Married"). That's big. Though I love Sandra Bullock, and adored the trailer, I wasn't expecting to like it this much. The film is rated PG-13, but a PG would've sufficed. Don't let it stop you from buying tickets. I was lucky enough to view it two weeks early, and though I know that "New Moon" will crush it at the box office, I dearly hope that someone out there will get their butts off their computer chairs and buy tickets for this. It will truy uplift, inspire, and just put you in a good mood. Rarely does a movie come along that I feel like re-watching immediately after I finish it. I can now "The Blind Side" to that list.

2012: 8.5/10 Stars

Release Date: November 13, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for intense disaster sequences and some language. The world is destroyed in numerous ways, including tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Disaster violence is nearly nonstop once it gets going, though most of it is very outlandish and bloodless. A man is however shown with a bloody wound. One f-word.

Review:

Do I actually believe that the world will end in 2012? No. But that didn't stop me from seeing this film...

In Short:

"2012" really just stars John Cusack. There's several other "stars" within the film, but he's the only well-known one in all of the film. Does director Roland Emmerich care? No. He only cares about destroying the world... one country at a time. According to the Mayan calendar... the world will end on 12/21/12. The main family in the film, of course, doesn't believe it. That is.. until their house is destroyed by an earthquake, then the whole state of California falls under the ocean, and then a huge flood tries to destroy the rest of the world. Though it starts out quite slow, once the action begins, it never lets up. It's quite relentless, and surprisingly, all very marvelous. "Transformers 2" gave me a headache, where as this one left me breathless and hungry for more.

In Full:

God mentions in the Bible that He would never destroy the world again by a flood. Apparently Roland Emmerich didn't care, because a really huge flood pretty much wipes out the world in this apocalypse flick (does it count if it only destroys most of the world? Several states were spared.) Jackson Curtis is a struggling writer who is distanced from his family. His kids rarely see him, and he is divorced with his wife. But when small earthquakes begin to add up to big earthquakes, he realizes that maybe the Mayans were right when they predicted the end of the world in 2012. His family and several other determined survivors embark on a crazy quest around the world, in search of a safe place amidst chaotic destruction and death. It's all very dizzying, and the story quite weak, but with all of the special effects, it's hard to really even care.

The acting was verging between mediocre and weak. John Cusack isn't normally a bad actor, he just has never really been that good of one. Here, the dialogue often felt wooden, but you could tell everyone was doing their best with it. Cusack proved to act out the part of an estranged father quite well, even though there was only so much he could do with the lines. Of course, the corniness of the dialogue added to the "popcorn movie feel," as the only point the director chose to focus on was the special effects. Amanda Peet and Thandie Newton rounded off the supporting cast with the same type of cardboard feel (I must admit, though, that several moments had my eyes prick, as these actors were able to deliver an emotional performance when they really tried... that just didn't happen too often).

Speaking of special effects... let's dig into that, shall we? To list off all of the effects would take more gigabytes than Youtube contains. So let's just start with this: when you think of CGI, what comes to mind? Is it the overblown, headache inducing effects of "Transformers 2?" Is it Emmerich's previous disaster flick, "The Day After Tomorrow?" All right... now take that... and multiply it times ten. From the opening, tension-building earthquakes, to the gigantic, earth consuming tsunamis... this film has got it all. Millions of people are mercilessly killed by falling flames, volcanic explosions, floods, earthquakes, and more, while the audience really only ever cares about the one main family in the film. The movie's production budget came in around $260,000,000, and oddly enough... I rather enjoyed its tremendous effects. I wasn't left with a headache, but a dropped jaw at the incredible scenes I had just witnessed. This is one of few movies that define epic.

But that epicness was really only shown in the special effects. As noted above, the story was weak: Mayans predict end of the world... world ends. It was also very, very long (2 hrs, 48 minutes, to be exact). The acting was mediocre at best, besides for a few exception scenes, and the dialogue wooden and forced. Of course, you probably could expect that when watching the trailer. This is a mindless popcorn flick that is made to entertain and nothing else. Several scenes may provoke brief thinking, but you will only really leave the theater gaping in awe at the film's impressive visuals. Let me also take this time to say that I think the whole plot is bull. The world WON'T end in 2012. It's fact. Somewhere in the Bible, God notes that no one will know our final hour. Not even the Mayans (who, by the way, played basketball with people's heads and sacrificed their children. Who's ready to listen to their advice?! I know I sure am!)

"2012" is epic. Epic in its spell binding visuals and nothing else. And that's really the only base for the movie. Without them, there would be nothing. It's almost as if Emmerich wanted to show off an impressive CGI budget, and simply threw an air-thin plot, acting, and dialogue into the mix. They are all lost in the frenetic chaos that takes place after its slow beginning. However, as the tension slowly builds, it eventually erupts into a non-stop, action packed ride that will take your breath away and seemingly suck the air from the room. It's a very long movie, so you might want to eat and pee before you go, but it never seems as long as it actually is, due to its ability to pull you in and never let go. So no... this movie doesn't deserve any awards as one of the best films of all time... but it certainly can be called epic on its own merit.

A Christmas Carol: 8/10 Stars

Release Date: November 6, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for scary sequences and images. The Ghost of Christmas Future is a scary, Grim Reapear-type ghost, who reveals a skeletal face. Several skeletal (demon?) children hide under the Ghost of Christmas Past. A man shrivels up into a skeleton before crumbling to dust. Several intense sequences.

Review:

When I heard that Disney was creating a film based off of Charles Dickens' classic story, I made two assumptions: though it would probably be great, it would probably stray from the book. In the end, my last assumption was proved wrong...

In Short:

"A Christmas Carol" is a story that we all know, or at least have heard of. A very grumpy and pessimistic man named Ebeneezer Scrogge is visited by four ghosts on the Eve of Christmas. All in all, they help him become a better man as he learns to get in the spirit of Christmas. Though published over one hundred years ago, it still stands as an all-time classic. Now, Disney offers their take on it, and honestly, it remains amazingly faithful to the classic story. Jim Carrey gives his all as the voice of Scrooge, and the visuals are jaw dropping. Though it would've still been great in 2-D, the 3-D added a certain splendor and depth to the screen (especially when it "snowed" on you). Overall, though several scary sequences would frighten off the youngsters, "A Christmas Carol" is a fresh take on an old story that still is able to retain its "oldness."

In Full:

We all know the story. We've heard how it goes time and time again. Ebeneezer Scrooge is, to put it bluntly, a grouch. He lost his work partner seven Christmas Eves ago, making him all the more vehement towards life and of course... Christmas. But this Christmas Eve... things are going to change. On this sacred night, the ghost of his lost partner, Jacob Marley comes to visit him. He explains that throughout the night, he will be visited by three different ghosts. The first, Ghost of Christmas Past, takes him back to his childhood, showing the tender side of Scrogge. The Ghost of Christmas Present shows him what people currently think of him (as you can assume, it isn't pretty). Finally, the scariest of them all, the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come shows him what will happen if he doesn't change his ways (once again... not pretty). And it wouldn't be a Disney film if Scrooge didn't cheer up and reach out his hands to others. Though this has been re-done countless times, Disney's version stayed close to the book and was an enjoyment throughout.

Jim Carrey was chosen to voice Scrooge, and though I can't say I enjoy Carrey's acting on a regular basis, I have to hand it to him... he was the perfect choice for Scrooge. He voices him with such ferocity throughout, until the climax comes and his tone changes to caring and compassionate. You can tell that Carrey gave it his all with this one, and it shows. Scrooge's character comes alive. I also discovered that Carrey voiced both the Ghost of Christmas Past and Present, adding to his already impressive resume for this film. The rest of the film's characters really only share the screen with Scrooge for several scenes. Gary Oldman succeeds as the ghost of Marley, though he's really only on screen for around five minutes. Colin Firth, Daryl Sabar, and Cary Elwes are also given smaller parts. However, it's clear as daylight here that Carrey steals the show as the only main character.

The visuals are where Disney really gets their chance to show off. The animation isn't quite up to par with Pixar, per say, but it's awful close. When put in 3-D, it shines even more and left me wanting more. It begins like most Disney classics: the opening of an old book, in which case the story begins. The various ghosts throughout had me entranced by how vividly Disney depicted them, and the acute details they paid attention to also left me amazed. I doubt it will go down in history or win any Oscars, but it's a visual feat that, though is not groundbreaking, is certainly a treasure all the same. The movie itself wasn't perfect, but I was so entranced with the enthralling visuals half the time, that it helped subside some of the problems I did find in the film.

Those problems, though not big, still helped earn this film 8 stars (which clocks in somewhere around a B or B+). As much as I enjoyed the film, I did find it relatively slow in parts. Its beginning was intriguing, but like I said, somewhat dull (especially for the younger ones), and though it picked up speed when the ghosts came to visit him, it never really grabbed my interested until the Ghost of Christmas Present. I'm not saying that I didn't like it up until that scene, but it just wasn't as good or interesting up until Scrooge meets Christmas Past (whom I found quite hilarious and obnoxious at the same time). Another cautionary note is that I wouldn't recommend this for younger children. Though not horrible, some of the imagery in this film may scar those tots (a family sitting in front of me had little children that had to leave early.) My age recommendation is 10 and up.

"A Christmas Carol" is fun, lively, and sparkling, if not a bit slow. It's not a perfect movie, but it sure is the best re-telling of this classic that I've ever heard. The story is timeless and has been told numerous times before, but something just seems fresh and new about this version. It doesn't stray from the book's path, but it still feels unique and original. The animation lights up the screen with beautiful backgrounds and realistic people and buildings. The voicing was perfect, especially Carrey, who brings the character of Scrooge completely to life. It did have the tendency to drag in places, and may bore the littler ones (as well as scaring them out of their minds), but for a movie studio known for taking classics and twisting them into outrageous ideas... Disney sure does succeed with this one. Next time you hear someone insulting this film, look them in the eye and say: "Bah! Humbug!"

The Box: 5/10 Stars

Release Date: November 6, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images. Two women are shot, both with only minimal blood. A snowplow smashes into a car (sending it flipping through the air). Several intense moments. A man is shown missing half his face (very CGI-ish and unrealistic looking). Many moral questions are asked, dealing with forgiveness, consequences of our sins, and the afterlife.

Review:

"The Box" had me hooked from its savvy trailer. The actual movie, however, qualifies as one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen...

In Short:

"The Box" has a good premise. A couple struggling financially are given a box containing a button. If pressed, they will be given one million dollars. The solution to all of their problems, right? There's a catch though... one person whom they don't know will also die. So what do they do now? However, once the button is pressed, there will always be consequences. The main couple, Norma and Arthur, don't figure this out, of course, until after they press the button. It had me hooked at its beginning, but slowly began to slide downwards as the plot spiraled more and more out of control. It poses many questions on morality, but rarely ever answers them. The acting and visuals were both impressive enough, but with no real direction, they just aren't enough to save this sloppy old-fashioned mystery.

In Full:

Norma and Arthur Lewis are struggling. Arthur just lost his job, while their child's school is no longer offering tuition discounts. They need money... badly. So when a box containing a button and a creepy old man show up on their doorstep, Norma is just completely willing to let this complete stranger into her house (sarcasm alert). He tells her that if the button is pressed, they will receive one million dollars, but that someone they don't know will also be killed. Tough choice, huh? They have 24 hours. Of course, when the button is pressed, they must live with the consequences of their action. The plot was based off of a 1980's Twilight Zone episode, and though it has a great premise (and trailer), it loses steam halfway through when things grow messy, unrealistic, and just downright weird. Its old-fashionedness was definitely a pro, but when the movie has no real direction (or answers for all of the questions it asks), there's not much that can save it.

Cameron Diaz here plays an old fashioned woman with spunk and strength. Though she makes her share of stupid decisions throughout the film, she loves her son and her husband and will do anything she can to gain forgiveness. Though she sometimes sounded contrived and uncaring, she pulled it off for the most part with a certain elegance, grace, and... an accent. James Marsden turns in a surprisingly decent performance as her husband, Arthur, who is also strong, brave, and determined to win. Frank Langella gives an eerie and downright creepy performance as Mr. Steward (the old man proposing the offer), and though he's never given too much to do, he lights up the screen whenever he is on it.

The visuals were what really impressed me. This is made to look like an old-fashioned move. It laid along the lines of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers," or somewhere around there. That being said... it is 2009, so the visual effects are definitely more up-to-date and advanced. Though I wasn't a huge fan of the film, several moments had my eyes locked to the screen due to the stunning visuals. It never overdoes it here... it keeps its feet on the simple and straight path, and in this occasion, I was very happy it did. It retained its older, Hitchcockian style that way, without losing its habit of hitting us with great visuals right as we're getting restless.

What can I say? I've already hit up many of my complaints for the film. It has a totally crazy plot that takes us down a spiraling path full of twists and turns that leads us straight to a dead end. There are times when I love a good outrageous plot with crazy and unrealistic turns. But I also like those type of movies to at least offer some type of resolution. Here... we get nothing. We're thrown down this twisting path before running right into a brick wall. I also found it somewhat slow... many of the scenes had me interested, as they had a vibe that things would pick up. Did they? Not really. Even up until the end, every scene that you thought would escalate into something big never really did. "The Box" is made up of a collection of lesser, small-impact scenes that eventually just end. Cue credits.

As much as you might think that I hate this movie right now... I don't. I really wanted to like this movie. The trailer was wonderful, and had me watching it at least 10 times. Then the movie started, and I was hooked. It started off snappily, the eerie mood was set right off the bat, and I thought all would be well. Then it took a few sharp turns, got a bit slower, and began to head off track. Soon, it took some even sharper turns, slowed down even more, and strayed even farther. It asks many questions, none of which are answered, and delivers a plot so crazy that it just needs an explanation. Are we given one? Nope. Nothing but the end credits. Movie endings are like shoes. Some are tied rather tightly, while others are left looser. Either one can be a good or bad thing, depending on the movie. "The Box" is like an untied shoe... even looser than lose. And after jogging down a winding path filled with moral questions and unbelieveable plot twists without tied shoes, you end up tripping. The trip wasn't enough to ruin the movie completely for me, but definitely left me feeling like this one could've waited for its DVD release.

Amelia: 8.5/10 Stars

Release Date: October 23, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for some sensuality, language, thematic elements, and smoking. The main couple kisses and cuddles while clothed on a bed. Sex is implied, as well as an affair (nothing shown). Various people smoke, as well as drink (some to drunkenness). Thematic elements include women trying to gain equality. A plane loses its wheels during take-off. Several intense scenes while up in the air.

Review:

Amelia Earhart is one of my heroes (heroines?). This movie re-confirmed that...

In Short:

"Amelia" tells the incredible true story of the first woman pilot to make it across the Atlantic... Amelia Earhart. This documents her life, from her first flight, to her first solo flight, to her love life with George Putnam and Gene Vidal, to her attempt to fly around the world. This is all told with complete realism, and acted solidly by Hilary Swank, Richard Gere, and Ewan McGregor. I left the theater longing for more, feeling like the ending needed more, which is probably what they were aiming at. Just as Amelia's life was left on very loose terms, so is this movie, making it all the more realistic. The scenery is absolutely gorgeous and though critics have been giving this very average reviews, I am going to be the oddball to say that Amelia truly soars.

In Full:

Amelia Earhart is best known for being the first woman pilot to fly across the Atlantic Ocean. But how did she start off? Though this movie doesn't give too much background info on her childhood, it does tell us a bit about why she wants to fly: for the fun of it. She gets the help of George Putnam, and together, they find her a plane and a crew to give her safe passage across the Atlantic. But Amelia is not one for sitting back and watching on the sidelines... she wants to fly solo. This movie shows her life as a lover, a celebrity icon, and a pilot. She helped influence women for generations and generations to come, as she fought for equality and refused to let her thoughts be silenced. "Amelia" is an energetic, beautiful, and soaring film that gives you insight to one amazing woman.

And what better person to play that amazing woman, than Hilary Swank, who actually resembles the famous pilot quite a bit. Swank puts her all in the performance, and I had a hard time recognizing her. When she puts on those boots and aviator goggles, Swank is no longer Hilary... she is Amelia Earhart, and she doesn't let us forget it. Richard Gere joined the cast as her husband, George Putnam, and though he wasn't given all that much to do, he shines with what he is given. Then there is Ewan McGregor as Gene, the competition for Amelia. I will say that I've seen Ewan put on a better performance, but it's very clear that he's trying here, and he accomplishes his job decently. That being said, Swank is still the one who shines here.

The scenery in this film was lush and beautiful. Throughout, we get glimpses of Amelia's plane soaring over crisp blue oceans or exotic and green forests. All of it made me want to get in that cockpit and experience it all for myself. Everything was so life-like, which in this case, was all for the better. The visuals were also quite marvelous. Though I heard it was quite hard for the studio to find a plane similar to that of Amelia Earhart's, it most certainly paid off. Everything about this film seemed like it was really the 1930's. Pretty much on every visual level here... this film succeeded.

If I was to find something not to successful about the film, it would be its length. This movie clocks in at almost 2 hours, and though I was entertained throughout, I felt that there were some scenes they could've trimmed or cut out completely to make the movie move along at a faster pace. I still left the theater wanting more, but more so because it ended on such a loose note, rather than because it was too short. It felt a bit too long in my opinion, even though the film as a whole was great. I just felt that several parts were too long.

"Amelia" is a true story, which made it all the more inspiring to me. This film made me want to go out and try and conquer the world (not actually, but you get my point). Amelia Earhart makes you feel like you can accomplish the impossible and achieve all of your goals. And you can... Amelia showed us that. Even though her life's end is a mystery, and she never did achieve her biggest goal, she showed us that when you work at something, remarkable things can happen. She is an influence and inspiration to both sexes, and will continue to be for many years and generations to come. "Amelia" helps capture her go-getting attitude, her larger-than-life charisma, and her optimistic charm. Here's one that dearly hopes this remarkable film beats the dreadful "Saw VI" (which is also released this week).

Where The Wild Things Are: 9/10 Stars

Release Date: October 16, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action, and brief language. Mature thematic material includes family dysfunction, coping with pain, and dealing with anger. The Wild Things get in several fights throughout, several being comical, while others can be quite violent and scary (no blood). A family screams at each other, and a son bites his mom.

Review:

"Where The Wild Things Are" is a very short book. That being said, the movie sure did capture the wonder of it...

In Short:

"Where The Wild Things Are" is based on the classic book by Maurice Sendak. It's a children's book, that many families enjoy worldwide. Now, we get a little twist, as the book is made into a full-length movie that, in my opinion, surpasses the book. But you should know beforehand, this is not a children's movie. Though you may have no problem reading the book to your 4-year-old... be cautious of the film. This deals with dark and mature material here, mainly revolving around a boy named Max's figurative trip into a world where beasts called "The Wild Things" lurk. There, he becomes their king and helps them through thick and thin. The acting was great, the visuals were even better, and the movie had a certain fluency that was poignant and breathtaking.

In Full:

"Where the Wild Things Are" is based off of a classic children's book that clocks in at 10 sentences. You may be wondering how they would pull that off, but take in mind... they did it with "The Cat In The Hat." And however unfortunate of a film (if you can even call it that) it was, "Where The Wild Things Are" takes a bit differerent approach and makes a movie about childhood... for young adults and older. This movie follows the main story's plot: after getting in trouble, a young boy named Max finds himself in a magical world where he becomes the king of crazy and very big creatures called "The Wild Things." However, this dives into deep material dealing with family dysfunction, coping with pain, and dealing with anger. It's not for the little kids, as ironic as that may be. For them, there'll always be the book. For the older ones, however, this is a truly beautiful film with good pacing, a great story, and wonderful messages.

The acting/voicing was near perfect. Max Records plays the character of Max, and though I've never seen or heard of him before, he was absolutely great for his age, and gave the perfect emotion and character to Max. Throughout the film, I was in awe of how well he portrayed his character. Lauren Ambrose, James Gandolfini, and Catherine O'Hara voice several of the Wild Things, and all of them did a fine job. Overall, the actors all added to the film, and were part of the reason this ended up with 9 stars. Without good acting or voicing, you don't have much of anything. Bad acting distracts you from the plot, visuals, and every other good thing films have to offer. Luckily, I can't say that about this film.

The visuals is where everything really comes together. Mainly the reason for the 9 stars, the acting was great, the story was nice, but the visuals were fantastic. From the grandeur of the Wild Things, to the absolute wonderful backdrop of the film, there isn't one negative thing I can comment on, visual-wise. So many camera shots had me simply staring in awe at how beautiful it all was. I wanted so much to lie down with the Wild Things as they peacefully slept. I wanted to jump into the spectacular ocean that lay before me. What I'm trying to say is, even if you weren't a fan of the book... go to this movie and be simply amazed at the gorgeous, life-like, and jaw-dropping visuals.

If I had to try and find something negative to comment on, I would have to dig deep. And after getting my shovel, digging a deep hole, and stopping only when the pile of dirt was taller than me, maybe then I would find the small flaw in this film: its length. Yes, it's only about an hour and a half, but it felt somewhat longer to me. I don't know why, as I was never bored at any point, but it just felt like I had been sitting for much longer than 90 minutes when the end credits began to play. Of course, that being such a minor con, it's buried far beneath all of the pros found here.

In the end, I have to say that I don't recommend this film for anyone under the age of 10. Drop your mouths, say what you like, but that is my simple and humbled opinion, as I believe that this is mainly more for teenagers and adults. The content dealt here isn't the frothy, light, playful sentences found in the book about dancing and having a good time. Max's stay on the island is often painful and not all relationships are neatly tied up. My 10 year old sister tagged along, believing it to be a kids movie and came out saying it was "boring and just okay." Many parents have already fallen for the trap, taking their 2 and 3 year olds to the film. If you're reading this review and have anyone falling into that age group: take caution. Everyone else... have fun and enjoy the breathtaking splendor of "Where the Wild Things Are."

Love Happens: 8/10 Stars

Release Date: September 18, 2009

Content Advisory: Rated PG-13 for some language including sexual references. A scattering of mild swear words. Several sexual references. A car slams into a pole. A man's feet are severely burned when he steps on burning coals (only briefly seen).

Review:

"Love Happens" just so happened to be one of the cleanest romantic movies I've ever seen...

In Short:

"Love Happens" is labeled as a romantic comedy. I would actually consider it a romance with hints of comedy sprinkled throughout. This movie tells the story of Burke Ryan, a man who, after the loss of his wife, is determined to help others stop grieving and start living. Problem is, he still hasn't overcome his own grief. That's when he meets Eloise. Step by step, she helps him stop living a lie and begin living a life. This romance was predictable, as well as corny in some parts, but it was so downright cute and sweet, that I couldn't help but enjoy it.

In Full:

Burke Ryan is determined to help people deal with losses of loved ones. After losing his wife in a car crash, he wrote a self-help book, leading people through, chapter by chapter, the process of overcoming pain. The problem is, deep down, he still hasn't moved on from his loss. The very advice he gives other to take, he can't take himself. At a seminar in Seattle, the death place of his wife, he meets Eloise, a beautiful woman who at first, hates him. But as they spend more time together, Burke realizes that Eloise may just be the one to help him recover. It's a predictable yet very sweet romance that is actually very sad. It keeps the romance in the background, and focuses a lot on death and grief. It's not too original, but it sure is a heart warmer.

At one point in this movie, I leaned over to my cousin, and told her, "I like Jennifer Aniston and Aaron Eckhart together." It's true... their chemistry explodes throughout this movie. Neither of them really stretch their acting abilities, but they both shine with what they're given. There were times when Eckhart's lines verged on horrendously corny, but I then realized that they were made like that. His "self-help" advice is basic and cheesy, but I'm guessing that is what the director was aiming for. The supporting cast also helps make this movie's acting a success.

This is filmed in Seattle, and let me tell you... it's quite gorgeous. From an expected scene atop the Space Needle, to a fight scene set in a gorgeous forest, I was so relieved that this wasn't set in the typical romantic settings, such as Los Angeles or New York. Instead, we're given a handful of stunning, sometimes frantic, yet still peaceful backgrounds that help make this movie quite lovely. Seattle just seemed to be the right place for "Love Happens."

Of course, "Love Happens" wasn't completely perfect. As I said before, this is a romance... it's rarely unpredictable, though a sudden plot twist at the end did leave me a bit in shock. There's nothing new or exciting contained here, and the dialogue can sometimes verge on the cardboard side. That being said, several scenes in this film were quite original. I won't tell you what happens, but look for the concert scene. It has to be the most unique date I've ever seen in a movie. And when was the last time you saw a movie where the couple didn't jump into bed at least once? That's right... here, Burke and Eloise shake hands on their first date. Talk about 20th century.

"Love Happens" is so much more than a simple romantic comedy. It had its share of problems, as I already mentioned above, but the movie was just so darn sweet that I just had to love it. Many other critics disagree with me on this one, but I don't care. This is probably the cleanest romantic comedy you'll ever see. It's not completely hilarious or unpredictable, but it's cute, humorous, clean, sweet, and touching. The actors do a fine job with what they're given and the setting is gorgeous. Its large focus on grief, death and loss isn't for everyone, but for those wanting a film that will make you think, smile and cry... this is for you.