Movie Review: PARANORMAN

PARANORMAN

2012

PG

"Can't you be like other kids your age?"
-- Perry Babcock

ParaNorman is a 2012 animated film directed by Chris Butler and Sam Fell that serves as the latest piece of stop-motion animation to hit the silver screen. The film tells the story of a young boy named Norman Babcock (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee) who has the ability to see and speak to the dead. As one can imagine, no one in his small town - including his family - truly believes his seemingly outrageous stories, and as a result, Norman has become a bit of an outcast among his peers. One day, however, his equally-outcast uncle Mr. Prenderghast (voiced by John Goodman) tells Norman that a 300-year-old witch's curse is about to destroy the town, and the boy is the only one who can prevent it from happening. Initially pushing the idea aside, a string of eerie visions leads Norman to believe his uncle. With the (reluctant) help of his only friend Neil (voiced by Tucker Albrizzi), his sister Courtney (voiced by Anna Kendrick), Neil's brother Mitch (voiced by Casey Affleck) and a local bully named Alvin (voiced by Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Norman sets out to save the town from the evil about to come upon it.

As many of my readers will know, I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of August 17, 2012 for the two major films being released. Some of you may have seen my quick review of The Expendables 2 on the affiliated Facebook page yesterday, and now I've had the chance to see ParaNorman, for which I was more excited. Always a fan of stop-motion animation, the concepts behind this particular film seemed incredibly attractive, and I've almost been counting down the days until I could see just what directors Butler and Fell could bring forth.

I have to start by talking about the stop-motion animation. Being such a big fan of the medium, I have to say that I was utterly blown away by just what ParaNorman had to offer. I've seen plenty of great pieces of work from past stop-motion films, but ParaNorman seems to take this one to a new level. I can't quite put my finger on exactly what makes this film stand apart, but I do think that there are little nuances here and there that just make this world seem just a bit more real. There were times that I was left open-mouthed by the beauty of the film, and for that alone, it needs to be applauded.

Luckily for the audience, we're also getting a stellar screenplay that brings a off-beat type of charm to the film. From the very outset, we learn of Norman's spectacular ability see and communicate with those who have passed on. At the same time, we also learn of the struggle Norman must face as a result of his gift, and it immediately gave me the opportunity to relate to the character. From there, we jump right into the action, learning of the witch's curse and Norman's ability to stop it. We meet a number of wonderfully fleshed-out characters who help or hinder Norman along the way. At the same time, we're listening to a perfectly-scripted set of dialogue for each individual character, each of whom brings a little bit more to the overall scheme. And at the end of the day, the film manages to bring itself full circle, touching on the concepts of bullying and evil in the real world. It's a truly well-done piece of work by director Butler, who also penned the script.

While we're on the subject of the characters, I have to say that the vocal cast did a splendid job in bringing these characters to life. Smit-McPhee is great in the central role, and it's easy to fall in love with the character from the very start. I thought Albrizzi and Kendrick offered two of the better roles in the film, and I think Mintz-Plasse deserves a lot of credit as well. Also be on the listen for Leslie Mann and Jeff Garlin as Norman's parents; each of them does quite well with their respective roles.

Where ParaNorman truly succeeds is in its tone and its blending of genre. As an animated film, a film-goer will most likely assume it's going to be a comedy that's branded for children. That's not entirely the case with this particular film. Like past stop-motion ventures like 2005's Corpse Bride and 2009's Coraline, there's a bit of darkness revolving around ParaNorman. While there is quite a bit of comedy - both in dialogue and in slapstick form - throughout the film, we also have a bit of horror and suspense for the avid horror fans. There were a few moments where the tenseness of the film truly felt palpable, and I don't think I've ever had that feeling in an animated film before. I have to give a lot of credit to the entire cast and crew for bringing forth a film that pushes the boundaries of the animation genre. Parents should just beware that this one might not be for the very little ones.

At the end of the day, ParaNorman is a great film that deserves to be mentioned as one of the better stop-motion ventures in cinematic history. As I read some other critical reviews of the film, I stumbled across this particular snippet from Washington Post writer Sean O'Connell, and I thought I'd share:

[ParaNorman is] A colorfully macabre stop-motion animation comedy that embraces the sociopolitical allegories of George A. Romero's zombie pictures and reworks them into a feature-length episode of "Scooby-Doo."

Needless to say, I couldn't agree more, and that's what makes this film so darn enjoyable.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: JAWS

JAWS

1975

PG

"Come on into the water!"
-- Chrissie Watkins

Jaws is a 1975 action thriller directed by Steven Spielberg that has become one of the most beloved films in American cinema history. When the half-eaten remains of a young girl are washed onto a beach in Amity Island, Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) attempts to close the beaches just before the Fourth of July holiday. He is immediately met with resistance from some of the town's political leaders, including Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), who tries to explain to Brody that Amity's very livelihood is reliant on the income it will receive over the holiday weekend. Reluctantly, Brody allows the beaches to remain open, only to see a young boy killed by the same shark in broad daylight. The town goes into a panic, and through another series of attacks, the police chief is able to convince Vaughn that outside help is necessary to defeat the beast. He enlists the help of a young scientist named Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) from the Oceanographic Institute as well as a local grizzled shark hunter named Quint (Robert Shaw) to captain their vessel. The rag-tag trio sets out onto the horizon in search of the massive shark that has terrorized the entire community.

I chose to write about Jaws as my first "Must-See Monday" post for a few reasons. First, I thought the timing with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Discovery Channel's Shark Week was too good an opportunity to pass. Secondly, I have never held back my personal love for this particular film. I have always commended it both for its cinematic integrity as well as its social relevance and its importance to film history as a whole. It is easily my favorite film, and it's one that I can watch over and over and still find entertaining from start to finish.

There's a number of facets working together in this film that elevate it to such a lofty standing in my book. For starters, we have a fantastic screenplay that delves into more than the casual viewer will realize. The film is based off Peter Benchley's 1973 novel of the same name, but as with many book-to-film adaptations, the two have very stark differences. What's unique in this particular example, however, is that the film version of Jaws is the only movie I have ever seen that I believe surpasses its source novel. Now don't get me wrong: I have read and own the novel on a number of occasions, and I think it is a fantastic literary endeavor. However, there are a number of storylines in the book that cause it to get weighed down just a tad, and I think the film's writers were able to get to the meat of the story and stick to that throughout.

What the audience gets is a tense thriller that works in two "acts," so to speak. In the first act, Brody has two key antagonists: the shark, and the politicians trying to keep him from protecting the community. While the main continuous strain comes from the mayor and his cronies, and we only see the film's true terror surface now and then, we as the audience know who the true villain is. Once the politicians reach a breaking point, the film shifts into the second act, where things become a bit more clear-cut. Now, we have man versus shark, and it's this struggle that proves to be the most memorable as well as the most effective.

Through the first act, we get to good sense as to the characteristics of each individual on-screen. While the story moves along at a relatively steady pace, we have the opportunity to learn the good and the bad of each character. Character development isn't necessarily something that most people are going to talk about when it comes to this movie, but I think a lot has to be said both for the screenplay as well as the stellar cast who manages to bring forth spot-on performances. The trio of Scheider, Shaw and Dreyfuss proves to be one of the most enigmatic groupings of characters I've ever seen on-screen at one time, and they all manage to play off each other well. I do have to say that this might be Robert Shaw's greatest film role, and his monologue about the U.S.S. Indianapolis is easily one of the most haunting scenes ever devoted to celluloid. Add a slew of great smaller performances (i.e., Hamilton and Lorraine Gary), and you've got quite a cast.

At the end of the day, however, the film's best character has to be the shark itself, and yet, we as the audience don't actually see it until about halfway through the film. Spielberg had a hell of a time getting this movie made, and a huge part of the problem was the mechanical shark they wanted to use to bring the menace to life. As most film fans will know, the shark barely ever worked properly, so a number of other methods were crafted in order to keep the filming process in the works. There's a very clever use of sleight of hand throughout the film. Spielberg used tricky camera shots that allowed for the idea of the presence of the shark without there ever being a shark anywhere on-screen. In the first few attacks, we never actually see the shark, but the violence of the attacks may make the viewer think back and remember the shark anyway. The fact that we don't actually see the shark only makes the film all the more terrifying, and it always keeps the audience questioning when it will strike next.

Once the film reaches its second act, we see the mechanical shark do its work. By today's standards, it doesn't look like much, but back in 1975, the fact that they got this massive machine to work at all is utterly impressive. It benefits from the sleight-of-hand build-up it receives, and it makes it a little more believable as time goes by. In addition to the aforementioned techniques, some live stock footage of a real great white is used towards the end of the film, if only to give perspective as to just how large it was supposed to be.

The final piece that brought the shark to life was, in fact, the film's legendary cinematic score, brought forth by the brilliant John Williams. In the time where we do not see the shark, the ever-present sound of a tuba lets us know that something is coming, and in a way, the score makes for a character all its own. It's menacing and terrifying all at the same time, and there's a reason that it has remained such a classic score all these years later. Give it a listen here, if you'd like:

At the end of the day, however, there isn't much I can say about Jaws than has already been said by countless others. It is one of the defining films not only of the 1970s but also of cinematic history as a whole. I would challenge anyone to find a film that has had as much social impact as this venture, and even then, less than a handful could be named. The fact that even thirty-seven years later, Jaws is still entirely entertaining only helps prove that this is one of the greatest films of all time. It will always hold a special place in my heart.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: BRAVE

BRAVE

2012

PG

"If you had a chance to change your fate, would you?"

-- Princess Merida

Brave is a 2012 animated film directed by Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews that serves as the thirteenth feature film for animation studio Pixar. The film tells a story set in feudal Scotland that centers around a young princess named Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald). As a child, her father Fergus (voiced by Billy Connolly) gave her a bow and arrow as a gift, and it helped to instill a sense of adventure in her spirit. As she grows older, however, Merida's mother Elinor (voiced by Emma Thompson) tries to craft her into a lady worthy of being married off to one of the neighboring clans' first-born sons. Merida does not take kindly to this particular tradition, wanting only to be the master of her own fate. After a failed attempt at choosing her eligible suitor, Merida strikes out into the wilderness on her own, searching for the path that will lead her to a life of freedom from her overbearing mother. What Merida finds in those woods, however, may lead to a darkness unlike anything she could have ever imagined.

As with most of the people I know personally, I always eagerly await the next big Pixar production, and my anticipation for Brave was no different. I first saw the teaser trailer for the film sometime last year, and I was immediately blown away by the visual aspect of the film. Add the fact that Pixar was finally delving into the story of a female protagonist for the first time in its feature film history. It looked as though Pixar was going to rebound from its critical failure in Cars 2 (which I liked, if you may recall). Everything seemed set up for Brave to be an astounding success.

Then the initial reviews started to pour in. As of this moment, the film currently holds a seventy-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which is still considered a very good film. However, when you compare that to the rest of the Pixar canon, it seems a tad bit off-putting. I mean, the Toy Story films have received either perfect or near-perfect scores on the same website, and even some of the lesser Pixar ventures have fared better than that. Still, there's a many critics who have yet to see Brave, so maybe that's just the early viewers being a little too tough on the film. I mean, that makes sense, right? This particular critic says: Maybe.

Brave definitely offers quite a few things to enjoy. The first thing you're going to notice is just how beautifully-crafted the animators managed to make the visuals. In some ways, it's the most beautifully-animated Pixar film - and perhaps animated film overall - to date, and for that, it should be applauded. The work done with Merida, from her lifelike facial expressions to her wild curly hair, is utterly fantastic, and she may be the most realistic animated human character ever crafted. In addition, we're seeing quite a few beautiful locales that are so well-created that we may as well be seeing animated characters placed onto real-life camera shots. While I still think some of the visuals from 2008's WALL-E manage to take the cake, there's quite a bit to say about the work done here. Kudos, Pixar animators.

We're also getting a very strong vocal cast to bring forth these interesting characters. The meat of the character development belongs both to Merida and Elinor, and I personally thought that Macdonald and Thompson brought the best pieces to the film. The rest of the cast - which is mostly male, with one or two women popping up now and then - and they're all portrayed in an almost caricature-like fashion. So is it a coincidence that the Merida and Elinor are also the most realistic-looking and best-animated? I think not. It's a subtle hint to the viewer that we should be taking these women seriously while we can laugh at the men as they bumble about trying to bash each other's heads in. Still, the vocal work for the men proves entertaining. I'm a big fan of Billy Connolly's, and I thought he did well with his character. Also be on the listen for the likes of Robbie Coltrane, Craig Ferguson and the ever-present John Ratzenberger.

We also get a rather splendid musical score to accentuate the film. Patrick Doyle does well with crafting a score that's both adventurous and whimsical, and it fits the film to a tee. Interspersed with the orchestral segments are a number of songs that seemed, at least to me, a tad bit off-putting, but they still manage to capture and maintain the spirit of the film. Here's a snippet of the score for your listening pleasure:

And yet, despite all of this goodness, Brave does have a bit of a downfall, and it's not really where you'd expect it to happen. While Pixar has always been at the forefront of crafting beautifully-animated treats for their audiences, they've also been able to augment these visuals with astounding screenplays that manage to captivate and move their audiences towards whatever emotions they deem fit. Therein lies the problem with Brave. It almost feels as though we have an incomplete screenplay that doesn't necessarily punch home its message. While the story manages to be a good one, it definitely falls into predictability and rote rhetoric, and that's not something that audiences want to see, nor do they expect it from a studio like Pixar. It just didn't feel like the writers managed to figure out that one last emotional punch, and instead, we're left feeling almost a little bit empty. But it's empty in a good way, I suppose. There are still quite a few laughs to be had, and the story is easy to follow. Maybe we're all just so inundated with Pixar's brilliance that it's difficult to understand that the filmmakers are only human and we're going to hit a rocky patch eventually. It's just sad to see that it happened with a film that had so much promise.

All that being said, Brave was a solid film and definitely a step up from last year's Cars 2. Did it fail to meet everyone's expectations? Perhaps, but it's still head-and-shoulders over most animated fare being released out there nowadays. It's fantastic that Pixar finally took the leap and created a female-centric film, but I just think that they could've done Merida a little more justice than they did. If you're looking for a fanciful animated film like this that manages to impress on nearly every level, I strongly suggest taking a look at 2009's The Secret of Kells, which managed to blow me away. But Brave is still a great film that's worthy of your attention. Just don't expect it to leave a lasting mark in the way that Toy Story, WALL-E or Up did.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: ROPE

ROPE

1948

PG

"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us."

-- Brandon

Rope is a 1948 dramatic thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock that served as a bit of a technical experiment for the acclaimed filmmaker. The story follows two young intellectuals named Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) who strangle and murder a former classmate named David in order to experiment with the idea of committing the perfect murder. The two then hide the body in a chest and await the guests of their dinner party, which they have scheduled specifically in accordance with their heinous act. Slowly, the guests start to arrive, and we learn that each of the guests has a distinct relationship to the victim. Also in attendance is Brandon and Phillip's former school housemaster Rupert (James Stewart). As the even progresses and the other guests start to wonder about David's absence, Rupert begins to question whether their hosts might have an idea as to the missing man's whereabouts.

I first heard about this film after hearing about its relatively revolutionary technical aspect. Rope was intended to tell its story in real-time, and to make it feel as such, Hitchcock elected to create the movie as though it were filmed one continuous shot. Back in the 1940s, however, it wasn't physically possible to do so seeing as a film reel could only hold roughly ten minutes of film. Therefore, Hitchcock filmed Rope in ten sequences ranging from four to ten minutes then used clever sleight-of-hand techniques in order to make it feel as though the shot never truly ends. Technically, it's quite an achievement, and I'm sure there are quite a few aspiring filmmakers that can learn quite a bit about film-making from a movie like Rope.

Were the technical aspect the only reason to watch Rope, then this would probably prove to be a very short review. But this is Alfred Hitchcock, after all, so you can be sure that the rest of the film will be firing on all cylinders as well. I'd like to start with the acting component today. While it's not the greatest bit of acting I've ever seen in a film, I do have to say that the cast of Rope performs splendidly, especially given the way the film was shot. As always, Jimmy Stewart manages to steal the show, despite the fact that you can make the argument that he's not even the film's central character. He's important, yes, but we as the audience spend very little time without either Brandon or Phillip on-screen. The interplay between Dall and Granger is utterly fantastic, and we get a very deep sense of their respective characters despite the film's relatively short run-time. The rest of the cast fills out nicely and provides decent characterization, and I'd like to give special credit to Cedric Hardwicke and Constance Collier, who played David's father and aunt respectively, for bringing forth great supporting bits. Also very good is Edith Evanson, so be on the watch for her role as the maid. But this is really a film about the relationship between our murderers and their suspecting former teacher, and you can see that Hitchcock wanted to place most of the emphasis there. And the three men steal the show.

In addition, we're getting an utterly brilliant screenplay that's equal parts dramatic, comedic and thrilling. After the murder, which takes place in the film's opening moments, we're already thrown into Hitchcock's trademark sense of suspense, and it never once lets go of its hold on the viewer. At the same time, however, there's a massive level of bitingly hilarious black comedy throughout the film. Once the dinner party begins, the dialogue takes a turn of the hilarious, and I couldn't keep myself from laughing at some of the guests' remarks. The dialogue is where this film utterly excels. Although the acting isn't necessarily brilliant, the dialogue between each of the characters is top-notch, and I'd argue that I haven't heard dialogue this crisp and refreshing in any film I've ever seen. That's pretty high praise, mind you. What's truly fascinating, however, is the look at Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch - or "superman" - that the film provides. I had first heard of the concept of the "superman" in school. It essentially posits that there are some men who are superior to others, and these supermen could, in theory, murder their inferior kinsfolk as they pleased without any moral affliction or punishment. The murderers in Rope take this idea to heart and use it as their reasoning behind their strangulation of David, and over the course of the film, we get a rather deep look into the concept. It's truly fascinating, and it helps life this screenplay into the conversation as one of the best I've ever seen.

At the end of the day, Rope is a brilliant film that's definitely worthy of your attention. It hooked me from the very outset, and I felt as though I didn't want to blink for fear of missing some key bit of information. Hitchcock always knows how to draw his audience into his films, and Rope is no exception. Although it's not quite his best film, I do think that it has to be placed near the very top echelon. And that's saying quite a bit for a man who made a living creating some of the greatest and most timeless films ever dedicated to a film reel.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: THE PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS

THE PIRATES: BAND OF MISFITS

PG

2012

"Avast! I'm a pirate captain, and I'm here for your gold!"

-- Pirate Captain

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is a 2012 stop-motion animation film directed by Jeff Newitt & Peter Lord. The film tells the story of the bumbling Pirate Captain (voiced by Hugh Grant) who has led his crew on many adventures but has somehow managed to steal absolutely no booty. As the annual "Pirate of the Year" awards descend upon the seas, the Pirate Captain desperately attempts to find a way to win the award for the first time. He has quite a bit of competition from some of the best captains on the seven seas, but his crew is determined to help him bring home the trophy. After a string of unsuccessful attempts at plundering, the crew meets a scientist named Charles Darwin (voiced by David Tennant) who identifies the crew's parrot Polly as actually being a dodo, which the world thought to be extinct. He informs the crew that a scientists' convention might pay handsomely for such a find, so the Pirate Captain makes sail for London, knowing full well that the pirate-hating Queen Victoria (voiced by Imelda Staunton) may lay in wait.

Those of you who have been reading my reviews for quite a while will know that I'm a bit of a fan of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and those films got me interested in the idea of pirate movies altogether. So, when I heard about an upcoming animated film featuring a ragtag group of pirates sailing for adventure, you can be sure that I was terribly excited to see it. The Pirates! Band of Misfits even managed to pull the number five spot on my ten most anticipated films of 2012. That's saying quite a bit. And so, I impatiently awaited my opportunity to see the film, which has finally come.

I have to say that I feel a little letdown by the film, which didn't necessarily prove to be as funny as I thought it could be. Although there are plenty of moments where the film offers a smile or a chuckle, I was honestly hoping for something a little bit stronger. The film has been well-received by most critics, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. That's strong, I suppose. I mean, I did find the film utterly entertaining, and it definitely kept my interest from start to finish. Some of the jokes and gags were incredibly inventive and intelligent. They help keep the story moving along nicely, and for that, the screenplay should be commended. There just isn't a ton of depth to the storyline and the dialogue, and that itself is a bit of a knock against the screenplay. It's entertaining, but there was definitely room for improvement.

Luckily, we as the audience are getting a rather strong vocal cast for the film. Grant plays the Pirate Captain fantastically, bringing quite a bit of emotion to the character that could have easily fallen into typical caricature. I also thought that Tennant and Staunton did well. We're also getting a number of smaller vocal performances from some big-time actors. Be on the listen for the likes of Martin Freeman, Salma Hayek, Anton Yelchin, Brendan Gleeson and a slightly misplaced Jeremy Piven. But this is definitely Grant's effort, and it's a very strong effort and worth enjoying.

I do have to commend the animation crew for crafting some of the best stop-motion animation I've ever seen in a film. We're starting to see a resurgence in the stop-motion field, and I think each subsequent film will provide a little more of a piece to the puzzle, and it starts here with The Pirates! Band of Misfits. It's a visually beautiful film, and for that reason alone, it's worth watching.

At the end of the day, The Pirates! Band of Misfits is a fun film that's good for a chuckle and a few laughs, and the animation itself is astoundingly beautiful. Still, the film as a whole feels just a little bit flat, and although you'll be smiling at film's end, I'd challenge any viewer to try to remember the film a week from now. It just doesn't have that retaining factor to bring it into the upper echelon of animated films.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

1984

PG

"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."

-- Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a 1984 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the second installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. Although the film was released after Raiders of the Lost Ark, it actually serves as a chronological prequel to the original Indy adventure. After narrowly escaping a nightclub battle in Shanghai followed by a crash landing in the Himalayas, Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) finds himself stranded in India with his young partner Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and nightclub performer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw). They soon find themselves in a small Indian village that has become barren and destitute. Indy learns that the village has lost a sacred stone that kept life amongst the people and their crops and livestock. As Indy listens to the village leader's story, he learns that a group of people known as the Thuggee may have risen from the ashes and has come to inhabit Pankot Palace. These people worship an evil god called Kali-ma, and if they can find all five of the sacred stones, they will be able to unleash Kali-ma's wrath upon the world. Spurred by the thought of profiting from finding the stones, Indy takes Shorty and Willie to Pankot, where the three become more and more entangled in the dark and evil plot.

When one thinks of Temple of Doom, they usually think about how it's often considered the darkest of the Indiana Jones saga. While the first film managed to maintain a seeming lightheartedness throughout its run-time, Temple of Doom never shies away from the fact that we're being taken to a much darker place on this particular adventure. It takes a little while for us to reach the evil that will encircle our heroes, but once we reach it, it's an almost steady stream of pain and suffering.

The film's screenplay works on a couple different levels. It starts out in a seemingly similar fashion as the first film, giving us a little bit of a prelude to the action of the film's main story. This time, however, this little situation leads directly into the rest of the film's storyline, and in a way, the film's prologue sends Indy and his friends on their journey. From there, we get our adventure, but there's a very different feel to this one's storyline. While Raiders presented a screenplay that blended the drama, action and comedy together, Temple of Doom offers a story that presents each of those elements in a more choppy manner. In one scene, we'll be getting a bit of drama; in another, it'll be straight comedy; and in yet another scene, we'll be getting our action sequences, which are just as good - if not better - than those in Raiders. On occasion, the film offers scenes that intertwine drama and comedy well, but for the most part, we're only getting one or the other, and I think that hurts the film a little bit. There was one scene that I thought worked particularly well with combining drama and comedy, in that it keeps things lighthearted while still managing to further the storyline. Here's that clip, for your viewing pleasure:

That being said, when Temple of Doom manages to delve into its darkness, you can be sure that you'll be going as deep into the depths as you can possibly imagine. Although the movie manages to remain fun, we definitely have a bit of an emotional ride to take to reach the film's finale. Another difference between this film and Raiders is that we don't meet our central villain until halfway through the flick. In the first Indy film, we meet our villain at the outset, and we're able to form our feelings against him right away. Here, we have to wait it out, but the screenplay manages to create such a vile human being in Mola Ram that we almost instantly have to root against him. In this, I think Temple of Doom is just as effective as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Part of the reason we're getting such a disparity between the different genres in the film is the cast the filmmakers chose for the film. We're getting our same Indy as in Raiders, as Harrison Ford isn't necessarily bringing anything terribly different to the table. Aside from what the screenplay calls for, it's the same man we grew to know and love in the franchise's first installment. The biggest changes are the additions of Ke Quan and Capshaw, who both provide a strong level of comic relief. As Indy's partner and romantic interest respectively, there's plenty of opportunity for each of them to shine opposite Ford, and they definitely take advantage of those moments. This film served as Jonathan Ke Quan's first film role, and he definitely stepped up to the challenge of appearing alongside such a big-time star as Harrison Ford. Also worth mention is Amrish Puri, who brings life to the villainous Mola Ram. With a significant lack of screen-time, Puri manages to create a character that's so terrible that, as I previously said, we instantly hate. That takes quite a bit of work, if I must say so myself. All in all, the cast works well.

At the end of the day, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom still manages to be quite the exciting adventure, and it fits well with the rest of the Indy franchise. Yes, it delves into some darker themes here and there, but at its base, it still manages to follow the very distinct Indiana Jones format. If anything, I think there's more emotion to this film than any of the other films in the franchise, and that says quite a bit for this one's accolades. Does it measure up to Raiders of the Lost Ark? Not quite, but it's pretty darn close.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

1981

PG

"I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am."
-- Indiana Jones

Raiders of the Lost Ark is an Academy Award-winning 1981 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the first installment in the ever-popular Indiana Jones franchise. Renowned archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is approached by United States Army Intelligence after they intercept Nazi transmissions about an excavation in Cairo that may be digging in the lost city of Tanis in the hopes of finding the Ark of the Covenant. Because Jones has a penchant for acquiring rare artifacts and antiquities, the Army wants him to take possession of the Ark before Hitler and the Nazis can wield it as a weapon at the front of their own armies. To help in his quest, Jones makes his way to Nepal to find his old professor Abner Ravenwood, who is an expert on the city of Tanis. Instead of finding his mentor, however, Indy finds his daughter Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), with whom he had had a past romance. With the Nazis nipping at their heels, the two take one of Abner's Tanis artifacts and make their way to Cairo in the hopes of beating the Germans to the prize. Little do they know that the Nazis have enlisted the aid of one of Indiana's chief competitors in the French archaeologist Dr. René Belloq (Paul Freeman).

Ever since I was a child, I have been a bit of a fan of the Indiana Jones series, and to have the opportunity to review the original Indiana Jones adventure is quite a treat for me. It's going to be a little difficult not to be biased about reviewing this film because it has become so ingrained into my own consciousness; however, I think that so many people out there can probably say the same thing about this particular film franchise.

Let's start by taking a look at the cinematic landscape in which Raiders of the Lost Ark was released. By this time, Spielberg had made quite a name for himself with films like 1975's Jaws and 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Although both of those films had managed to garner both critical and audience endorsement, Raiders proved to be a different kind of film altogether. It marked Spielberg's first real foray into the action-adventure genre as he tried to bring to life a type of 1930s serial, and boy did he do it successfully. But more on that in a moment. We also need to understand the star-power of Harrison Ford in making Raiders a success. By this time, he had appeared as Han Solo in both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, so it goes without saying that he had become quite the household name. He had even had a bit of a cameo in 1979's Apocalypse Now. But it was the high-profile inclusions of Spielberg and Ford that made this film a must-see for many a film-goer back in 1981.

Raiders of the Lost Ark manages to succeed on a number of levels. First, we're getting a clever and original story that effectively keeps the audience engaged from the opening scene. By taking the Ark of the Covenent, a familiar artifact from the Bible, I think that a lot of people were able to relate with the story. This film proves to be very Christian-based in its mythology and storytelling, and because the Christian population (at least in the United States) is relatively high, you can be sure that many a viewer had some sort of previous knowledge of the Ark going into the film. Another reason the film works so well is that we're getting a very clear sense of good versus evil. Much in the way that Star Wars was able to establish the good guys and the bad guys quickly and clearly, Raiders manages to do the same with Indy and his adversaries. You can easily see the enemy in the form of the German Nazis, who have become almost synonymous with evil in the seventy years since World War II; however, I think the better differentiation between good and evil occurs in the opening scenes when we meet both Indiana and Belloq. It's immediately made clear as to which man has the higher moral fiber, and from that moment, we know for whom we should root. I also thought the dialogue was very well-written, and the characters are incredibly well-crafted. We easily get a sense of each character after only a few moments with them, and this ability to relate to the personalities on-screen only helps to bring the viewer in further.

I also thought that the cast performed rather well throughout the film. As one can imagine, this is Ford's show all the way, but he has some rather deft supporting actors that complement him quite well. I think Allen manages to keep pace with Ford's Indy, even if she goes a little over-the-top here and there. Freeman proves to be a fine central villain, bringing a little bit of brains to the antagonists side. He's not likely to be remembered as one of the better villains in cinematic history, but his Belloq is definitely worthy of at least an honorable mention. From there, we move onto some of the minor - albeit important - characters. We're getting a fun turn from John Rhys-Davies as Indy's friend Sallah as well as a pitch-perfect turn from Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody, Indy's friend and boss. On the villainous side, I have to take the time to mention Ronald Lacey, whose creepy performance might be the most memorable in the film. Overall, however, the entire cast brings forth their A-game, making this quite the ensemble performance.

Raiders of the Lost Ark would go on to be nominated for eight Academy Awards, and it ultimately took home four Oscars: Best Art Direction; Best Visual Effects; Best Editing; and Best Sound. One of the categories it lost in, however, was for Best Original Score. Now, those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I will skip out on an opportunity to mention the great John Williams, and seeing as he composed the score for this film, I have to bring him up yet again. It's one of his better scores, and as with most of his work, it manages to fit the film perfectly. Here's the theme, for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Raiders of the Lost Ark has become one of the most well-received and most-beloved films ever to be released. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which allows its followers to score the films they've seen, currently ranks Raiders as the 23rd greatest film of all time. The American Film Institute (AFI) currently lists it as the 66th greatest film. And Rottentomatoes.com currently gives the film a 94% approval rating based off critical reviews, and I will leave you with the site's critical consensus, which sums up my own thoughts on this brilliant piece:

Featuring bravura set pieces, sly humor and white-knuckle action, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most consummately entertaining adventure pictures of all time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Should You Watch It? Yes 

Movie Review: E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL

E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL

1982

PG

"I'll be right here."

-- E.T.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial is a 1982 sci-fi film directed by Steven Spielberg that went on to win four Academy Awards. The film follows the story of small, friendly alien who is unintentionally left on Earth when his fellow aliens are forced to escape during a foraging expedition. The alien stumbles upon a house where he meets a young boy named Elliott (Henry Thomas). Although initially frightened, Elliott elects to bring the alien into the family home, hiding him inside his bedroom closet to keep him safe. He affectionately names the creature "E.T.," and he soon introduces the creature to his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) and his younger sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore). Together, they do their best to hide E.T. from their mother Mary (Dee Wallace), but it becomes increasingly clear that E.T. simply wants to find his way home. E.T. and Elliott band together to create a communicating device that will send a signal into space in the hopes that E.T.'s ship may hear it and come to his rescue. However, a crew of government agents led by a man only referred to as Keys (Peter Coyote) learns of E.T's existence and moves into position to capture him for themselves.

I have to say that it's going to be difficult to write a review for a film so universally beloved as E.T. The film itself will turn thirty this year, and in that span of time, I'm sure millions, if not billions, of people have had the opportunity to watch it. It's a timeless tale about love and friendship, and even today, it still manages to find its way into the hearts of so many viewers. It had been quite a while since I'd had the opportunity to see the film in its entirety, but I was able to do just that yesterday, so here we go with my review.

I think we first have to take a look at the cinematic landscape in which E.T. was initially released. In the five years prior to E.T.'s release, the sci-fi world had seen the likes of 1977's Star Wars, 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1979's Alien and 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. To release a science-fiction film in the late-1970s or early 1980s was to have it compared to a slew of fantastic fare. At the same time, we need to look at the exploding Spielberg career. In 1975, he released Jaws, which he followed with Close Encounters. Then, in 1981, he released Raiders of the Lost Ark. With three preceding films like that, it was going to be tough to create something just as good. And still, Spielberg still managed to craft something truly brilliant with E.T.

Let's start with the film's screenplay, shall we? At it's base, it's a very simple story. A lost alien enlists the help of a young boy to aid him in getting home, and the two develop a beautiful friendship along the way. That's essentially the plotline in a nutshell. Sure, there are a few twists and turns here and there, but at the end of the day, that's the basics of what we're getting. Where E.T.'s screenplay excels is in its point of view. The film has a very childlike angle, placing the tale of first contact into the mind of a child. For the first two-thirds of the film, the adult perspective is essentially removed from the film - a feat achieved by denying the audience a view of any adult's face, save for Mary's. The story is strictly told from the child's perspective, and screenwriter Melissa Mathison didn't stop there. She managed to weave three different levels of childlike interaction into the film. We get the boyhood perspective from Elliott, the young girl's perspective from Gertie and the teenage perspective from Michael. Just seeing the difference in their reactions to E.T. is enough to make a quality film, but the interaction between the four characters is so brilliantly-crafted that it has to be applauded.

Fortunately, we're getting a well-cast group of actors to bring all these characters to life. As a younger movie-watcher, I had never noticed the merits of the acting in the film. It had always been about E.T. for me, but after re-watching it now, I have to say that the cast does a marvelous job. A lot of credit has to be given to Thomas, who plays the film's emotional lead. His relationship with E.T. is so genuine, and that couldn't have been an easy feat to achieve considering the puppetry used to bring the creature to life. And what a puppet it is! Even thirty years later, one can still marvel at how intricate and beautiful E.T. must have been to moviegoers in 1982. (Note: When the film was re-released in 2002 for the twentieth anniversary, some of the E.T. scenes had been reworked with CGI, but if you're looking for the better version, I still think the original 1982 flick is the way to go. Yes, the CGI brought forth a little bit more emotion for the E.T. character, but it just seemed - and still seems - a little out of place with the film.) I also have to give credit to the young Barrymore, who provides quite the comedic presence throughout the film. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, and as I said before, it's much better than I remember.

I also have to take a moment to give credit to John Williams, who composed one of this best scores for E.T. By this time, Williams had become Spielberg's go-to guy, and this was the second Spielberg film that Williams composed that nabbed him an Oscar for Best Score. Although I'm not sure whether it's his best score, I think that E.T. has to rank as one of Williams' most beautiful. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, E.T. is one of the most beloved films ever to grace the silver screen. As with Williams' score, I'm not sure I'm ready to crown this film as Spielberg's best; however, I certainly think it has the most heart out of any of his films to date. There's something timeless about this tale that keeps audiences rushing back to see it. E.T. is beautiful in its simplicity, and it tells a tale of friendship and love with which anyone can relate. It has rightfully earned its place amongst the best films ever created, and it has every right to remain on that pedestal.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: CLUE

CLUE

1985

PG

"You all seem to be very anxious about something."
-- Cop

Clue is a 1985 comedy directed by Jonathan Lynn that's adapted from the popular board game of the same name. The film opens on a stormy night in 1954 New England, where six strangers - Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mr. Green (Michael McKean) and Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren) - all arrive at a mansion for a dinner party of sorts. They each encounter the house's butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry), who escorts them all to their places at dinner. A Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving) joins the group midway through supper, and from there, the six guests learn that they all have one thing in common: Boddy is blackmailing all of them. He has brought them all together to discuss their "financial arrangements" and tells them that if they can kill Wadsworth, each of them will be able to leave the house, and all the evidence against them will be destroyed. Boddy presents each guest with one of the following potentially lethal weapons: a knife, a revolver, a rope, a candlestick, a lead pipe and a wrench. However, not everything goes exactly to plan, and the rest of the evening turns into a murder mystery that terrorizes everyone involved.

Clue is one of those films that I grew up watching on television. I remember it would always play on the family-friendly channels, and there was many a time that I can recall watching it. The film itself flopped during its theatrical release, but it has since gained a bit of a cult following. Sometimes the films with such a following are some of the best, so don't let its lackluster success at the box office deter you from giving this one a gander.

One of the things that most people remember about Clue is that it actually has three different endings. During its theatrical run, only one of the endings would play on random, so you could, in theory, see the film three times and have three different experiences. Once it started playing on television and VHS, however, the three endings were played back-to-back-to-back, inter-cut with title cards saying things like, "That's how it could have happened, but how about this?" or "Here's what really happened." If you can snag the film on DVD, it will give you the option to watch one ending at random or to watch all three simultaneously, but once you've seen all three, I think the simultaneous watch is the best. The endings in the film are brilliant, but they're definitely not the only reason the screenplay succeeds.

What's truly fantastic about the screenplay, which was penned by director Jonathan Lynn, is that a first-time viewer is probably going to be left guessing as to what the film's ultimate outcome might be. It's difficult for me to deduce whether the ending is predictable simply because I've seen the film on so many occasions, but the ending isn't exactly where the best bits come. Yes, the finale is fantastic regardless of which ending you watch, but the plot and the dialogue throughout the film is so top-notch that I have to consider this screenplay to be one of the best comedic screenplays ever to give life to a film. The jokes and gags come at the audience at a mile a minute, and it's going to take you two or three viewings just to catch all the little references here and there. I could make an entire post simply detailing my favorite jokes from the film, but that would offer too many spoilers, in my opinion. What you need to know is that Clue offers a compellingly funny story that blends a number of types of comedy together to make for a fantastically-funny film. The film has a lot of brains behind the silliness, and that's where the brilliance lies.

Fortunately, we're getting a fantastic cast to bring the film's story and characters to life. The entire cast is pitch-perfect, and it makes for quite the comedic romp. What's even better is that it's filled with loads of familiar faces, making the characters even more relatable. Each of them proves their comedic worth at some point throughout the film, and they each play their part to a tee. However, the real credit has to go to Tim Curry, who offers a performance in his career that rivals only his role in The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Curry brings a manic energy to the screen that is unmatched by anyone else, and his piece towards the end of the film is so perfectly-acted that I sometimes feel the need to applaud him. It's honestly just that good. The casting crew for this film just knew how to pick 'em, and I think we can all be glad that they did such a marvelous job.

I also have to pay tribute to John Morris, who composed the score for the film. At all times, it fits the events on-screen. The score had to be creepy, it had to be funny, it had to be fanciful. And Morris succeeded in making it all of these things at once. And the film's music truly helps set the mood and the tone of the film, and that alone gives it merit.

At the end of the day, Clue is easily one of the funniest movies I have ever had the privilege to see. Yes, it delves into the dorky here and there, but the intellectual humor blends so seamlessly with the silliness that its difficult not to enjoy this movie. I'd even go so far as to say its one of the best movies I've ever seen, simply because it offers one of the most entertaining movie-going experiences I've ever had, and it manages to remain engaging no matter how many times you watch it. You'll always be finding new things to love and laugh about, and that's what makes Clue both brilliant and timeless.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Should You Watch? Yes

Movie Review: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

http://thismovieguy.blogspot.com/search/label/Melinda%20DillonCLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

1977

PG

"I just want to know that it's really happening."
-- Roy Neary

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a 1977 dramatic sci-fi film directed by Steven Spielberg that has become one of the more iconic films of the 1970s. After strange occurrences are reported all around the globe, a team of scientists and investigators led by Claude Lacombe (François Truffaut) desperately attempts to discover the meaning of these seemingly supernatural events. At the same time, the audience meets Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), an electrician who has a close encounter with "something unusual" late one night. After his meeting, however, Roy starts to see a vision that he can't quite make out, and it slowly starts to drive him mad. He becomes invested in the idea of another alien encounter, and his apparent delirium is enough to drive his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) and his children out of there home. Roy keeps at it, however, and he ultimately learns that he must make his way to a remote area of Wyoming. Joined by a woman named Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon), whose son Barry (Cary Guffey) was taken by the aliens, Roy sets out for Devil's Peak in Wyoming, only to face resistance from the United States Army and the aforementioned Lacombe.

Close Encounters was one of those films that I grew up seeing here and there, but I'm not quite sure when I actually first had the chance to sit down and watch it in its entirety. I can distinctly remember seeing the Barry abduction scene as a child because I can recall the sheer terror it made me experience. It was only recently that I was able to find a copy of the 30th Anniversary Edition DVD that I had the time to sit down and watch the film again, and boy, was it grand. I had almost forgotten just how good the movie actually was.

Let's start out with some of its accolades, shall we? For starters, the film has been recognized by audiences and critics alike as one of the better films to emerge from the 1970s. At the time, it was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including nominations for Spielberg's directing and Dillon's acting. It ultimately won the award for Best Cinematography. Today, the film currently holds a 95% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

Close Encounters' most iconic bits (the theme, the mashed-potato sculpture, etc.) have been so thoroughly absorbed into the culture that it's easy to forget that its treatment of aliens as peaceful beings rather than warmongering monsters was somewhat groundbreaking in 1977.

I actually hadn't thought about this point until re-watching the movie yesterday. When you take a look back at the films that dealt with extraterrestrial life before 1977, you'll find a lot of movies where the creatures from outer space are attempting to destroy the human race. I mean, take films like 1958's The Blob or the classic 1953 film The War of the Worlds. It was films like these that offered the standard idea of alien life back in the 1950s and 1960s, and although the concept of a friendly alien was not entirely unprecedented - one need only look to the brilliant 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still - it simply wasn't the idea that had forced its way into the collective public consciousness.

In a way, it's surprising that Close Encounters continues to have a staying power with audiences today, seeing as most alien-centric films in today's Hollywood are all about violence and destruction. I mean, if you take a look at 2011 alone, you'll find films like Apollo 18, Attack the Block, Battle: Los Angeles, Cowboys & Aliens, The Darkest Hour and The Thing that all follow that basic premise. And so, it's something quite refreshing to know that at one time, a cast and crew of actors and filmmakers were able to create something so special and so unique, and even thirty-five years later, the film can still have an emotional impact on an audience.

There are a number of reasons as to why Close Encounters works so well as a film. For starters, we're offered a brilliant screenplay written by Spielberg and a few other collaborators. While the film offers a relatively simple story, it manages to show that story from a number of angles, giving the audience an eclectic view of the extraterrestrial occurrences throughout the film. On one side, we're seeing Roy and Jillian's reaction to their alien encounters; on the other, we see the scientists and military. What's interesting, however, is that all parties are working toward the same goal: understanding. Often times in alien-centric films, you'll have a military force who simply wants to eliminate the alien presence, even while a few scientists and civilians want to study and learn from them. The somewhat forced collaboration between the two groups in this film makes for a bit of drama as well as a sense of unity in the face of first contact with life from another world. And, at the end of the day, the film is entirely about communication. While the central focus will always be on the way the humans first communicate with the aliens, there's a lot of room to notice the communication between the humans as well. At nearly every stage of the film, we have some sort of translator for the Lacombe character, and at times, the dialogue between he and someone else can get a little confusing and convoluted. I think that only enhances the brilliance of the film's final act, when the humans are able to make contact with the aliens in a beautifully simple fashion.

We're also getting a string of quality acting throughout the film, and the actors easily find ways to bring their characters to life. It's hard to imagine that the role of Roy Neary wasn't written with Richard Dreyfuss in mind because it fits his personality to a tee. He has the opportunity to let loose and have fun with his performance, and it ultimately proves to be a compelling one. As was previously mentioned, Dillon managed to secure an Oscar nomination for her supporting performance, and I think that says enough about how well she does in the film. I also thought that Truffaut, who perhaps may be more famous as a writer and director than as an actor, did a splendid job as well.

One of the defining parts of this film, however, has to be the musical score, which was composed by none other than the great John Williams. I grew up listening to Williams' scores as a child, and in many cases, I knew a film's music before I ever had a chance to see the film. Close Encounters was one such case, but now that I'm able to see how well the music fits into this particular film. While it may not be his most iconic score, I would argue that Williams may have created one of his most beautiful here. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, here's a little taste of what he brought to the table for Close Encounters:

At the end of the day, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is one of the more iconic films ever to grace the silver screen. I'm sure there's been a point in your life where you've seen a snippet of the film here and there, but if you haven't had a chance to take in the film in its entirety, I strongly suggest you do, and do so soon. The film is simply brilliant, and although it may have been a tad bit overshadowed in 1977 by a little film called Star Wars, there's still so much to love about Close Encounters that I'm sure you'll find a way to enjoy it.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: CASABLANCA

CASABLANCA

1942
PG


"You played it for her, you can play it for me."
-- Rick Blaine

Casablanca is a 1942 Academy Award-winning drama directed by Michael Curtiz that centers around a romance in the midst of World War II. It takes place in December 1941, where we meet Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), an American owner of a saloon in Casablanca in Morocco, a place which serves as a springboard for Europeans looking to make their way to the Americas. Ever since the love of his life left him standing on a train station, Rick has been cynical and apathetic to life and politics, so he simply makes his living day in and day out without causing much trouble. That all changes when a couple of German couriers are murdered in the Moroccan desert and two letters of transit to Lisbon are found missing. Rick happens upon the letters on the night that his former love, Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), walks into his bar with her husband Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid), an escaped captive of a German concentration camp who has become a leader in an underground movement determined to stop the German army's advance. Because of his political standing, attempts are made to keep Laszlo in Casablanca, but as old feelings start to return, Rick finds himself caught in the middle of the authorities and his love for Ilsa.

I've only seen Casablanca once before watching it today, and it was definitely quite a few years ago that I gave it my first viewing. I vividly remember loving it upon my first watch, but it wasn't until today that I remembered just how brilliant and beautiful it actually is. There's something about this movie that just sucks you into the storyline and the characters and never once releases its grip.

For starters, we've got a fantastic, Oscar-winning screenplay to set the film's storyline. For whatever reason, stories of romance set against the backdrop of wartime efforts seem to work relatively well (also see: 1939's Gone with the Wind). In this case, we're never actually taken into the war, but the entire storyline revolves around the German Third Reich's attempt to keep one man from fleeing to the Americas where he could possibly speak of the atrocities he suffered at their hands. At the same time, we're being thrown into the middle of a past romance that suddenly resurfaces at the most inopportune moment. Throw in a few twists and turns for good measure, and you've got yourself a story that's going to keep the viewer engaged on its own. Some of the real strength of this movie's screenplay, however, lies in its dialogue, which proves to be exceptionally brilliant. At times, it delves into the serious, but there's actually quite a bit of witty and sarcasm thrown in here and there for those of you who are paying attention. I hadn't noticed it until today, but there's quite a bit of comedy to be had. And it's a bit of an understatement to say that this film is quotable. In 2005, the American Film Institute (AFI) released their list, "AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes," and Casablanca was featured six times, making it the most featured film. Here are the featured quotes (and their rank on the list), for your reading pleasure:

"Here's looking at you, kid." -- Bogart as Rick Blaine (#5)
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship." -- Bogart as Rick Blaine (#20)
"Play it, Sam. Play 'As Time Goes By.'" -- Bergman as Ilsa Lund (#28)
"Round up the usual suspects." -- Claude Rains as Capt. Louis Renault (#32)
"We'll always have Paris." -- Bogart as Rick Blaine (#43)
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." -- Bogart as Rick Blaine (#67)

To put it lightly, the screenplay is pitch perfect and offers quite the cinematic experience all on its own.

Fortunately, we have a stellar cast that lives up to the fantastic screenplay and puts it into good use. Bogart gives an amazing turn in an Oscar-nominated performance, and he really steals the show. I've gone back-and-forth on whether I'm a fan of Bogart's style, but watching this movie will always make me respect and enjoy him as an actor. Bergman and Henreid offer great supporting roles, but some of the other supporting characters are truly the ones who stand up with Bogart as the stars. The aforementioned Claude Rains is damn near flawless in his execution of a "poor corrupt official," and he brings a dose of both comedy and menace to the screen. Dooley Wilson plays the aforementioned Sam, Rick's nightclub piano player who has been with him since his days in Paris, and who also brings the film's main theme ("As Times Goes By") to life. Here's his rendition from the film, for your viewing pleasure:

Also be on the watch for a great performance from Peter Lorre, who does well with his limited screentime.

At the end of the day, Casablanca is a classic romantic drama that everyone needs to see. As I said before, I had forgotten just how good it actually is, and I'm so glad I took the time to give it a view again today. If you haven't seen this film by now, do yourself a favor and put it at the top of your to-watch list. This is about as must-see as they come, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A+
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: BEING ELMO: A PUPPETEER'S JOURNEY

BEING ELMO: A PUPPETEER'S JOURNEY

2011
PG


"When I was nine years old, it was just a dream that I had: 'Wow, I wish that I could work with the Muppets.'"
-- Kevin Clash

Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey is a 2011 documentary directed by Constance Marks and Philip Shane and is narrated by Whoopi Goldberg. It tells the story of Kevin Clash, who is most famous for bringing the Sesame Street character Elmo to life. The film follows Clash's life story, telling of how he grew up wanting to work with puppetry similar to the Muppet style. From a small-time television show to hitting the big-time with Henson Studios in New York City, the documentary chronicles Clash's journey from a young man with a desire to bring a smile to a child's face to a grown man who has never lost that initial ideal.

I first heard about this film after a dear friend mentioned it to me, and since then, I've been trying to find a way to watch it. I grew up watching Sesame Street, and although I don't necessarily remember having a huge draw towards Elmo - my favorite character was always Grover - the nostalgia of the character was enough to draw me to this film. I was curious to see the story of the man that helped make Elmo into an international icon, and boy does this film do just that.

The storyline tells of a Kevin Clash who was born into a slightly impoverished area of Baltimore, Maryland who, as a child, was immediately drawn to some of the older puppet-oriented television shows. Always a fan of Jim Henson, whom he considered his idol, Kevin strived to work for him one day. As his local celebrity grew, his name began to reach the farthest corners of the puppeteering world, and he eventually found work with Kermit Love, Henson's chief Muppet designer. From there, the rest is history. Part of the film's overall effectiveness is Kevin's journey itself. From his childhood, he knew how he wanted to spend his life, and he did everything that he possibly could to assure that his lifelong goal would be achieved. The screenplay offers the full range of emotional spectrum, as we can laugh and smile along with Kevin's triumphs but also cry and feel his pain when his over-the-top work ethic impinges on his personal life. In a way, it's the story of any great artist who is seemingly married to his work: his personal relationships may fall by the wayside a little bit, and in a sense, their success is a double-edged sword. At the same time, we're also getting a bit of a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Muppets, which is sure to appease some sections of this film's audience.

The quality of interviewees is fantastic, and it's all centered around Clash himself. He's an incredibly charismatic man, but his real-life persona about as opposite from Elmo as you can get. That doesn't mean, however, that his efforts to bring smiles to children is any different, and you can tell that there's a huge part of Kevin inside Elmo. It's refreshing to see a documentary centered around such an undeniably good human being. While you can be on the lookout for big-time celebrity cameos (in archive footage) as well as plenty of footage of the late Henson and Love, this is truly Clash's vehicle, and it should be treated as such.

Ultimately, Being Elmo is a feel-good movie that you'd be hard-pressed not to enjoy. Because Sesame Street is such an encompassing television show, I'm sure most - if not all - of you have seen it or grew up watching it just like I did. To get a behind-the-scenes look at arguably the most prominent and famous of today's Sesame Street characters is fantastic, but to get the story of the man behind that character is all the more amazing. Truly a feel good film that should be enjoyed by one and all.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN

2011
PG


"You care about something, you fight for it. You hit a wall, you push through it. There's something you need to know about failure, Tintin. You can never let it defeat you."
-- Captain Haddock

The Adventures of Tintin is a 2011 animated adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that utilizes motion capture technology. After purchasing a model of a history-laden ship called the Unicorn, well-known reporter Tintin (voiced by Jamie Bell) learns that the demand for the model is rather high. He starts to search for the story behind the ship, but he soon finds himself wrapped up in a more nefarious plot. Tintin is kidnapped by a man named Sakharine (voiced by Daniel Craig), who plans to find the secret behind the story of the Unicorn, which is only held by a descendant of the ship's captain, Sir Francis Haddock. Fortunately for Sakharine, he has found the last remaining member of the Haddock lineage, Captain Haddock (voiced by Andy Serkis), and plans to use him to find the answer he seeks. Wanting to learn the truth before Sakharine, Tintin teams with Haddock to keep Sakharine from finding the secret of the Unicorn, chasing him to the ends of the earth in order to stop him.

When I first heard about this film, I recognized the Tintin namesake despite having not been at all familiar with the original Belgian comic books. The biggest reason behind my desire to see the film was the collaboration between Hollywood legends Spielberg and Peter Jackson, as well as the fact that this would serve as the former's first animated feature film. Jackson, having been well-versed with the concept of motion capture, surely helped ease Spielberg into the filming technique. Their teamwork made this an almost must-see for me, but as with any movie, it had to be seen to be potentially enjoyed. It earned generally favorable reviews - it currently holds a 75% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - but it hasn't had the overwhelming success I thought it might. And after having watched it, I think it should easily have those rave reviews.

I want to start with the animation, which was stunningly beautiful. I've heard a couple of critics knock the motion-capture style that Tintin uses, citing that it takes away from the even-handed style of cartooning that the original comic books pioneered. While this style is referenced by a joke early in the film, I still think that the animation in this film does quite a bit of justice. It gave the filmmakers quite a wide range with which to work. But there's something absolutely beautiful about this film's animation. Aside from the motion-capture techniques used to create Gollum in the Lord of the Rings franchise, I personally think this is the best I've ever seen motion capture work. It's utterly stunning. I can't even begin to describe it.

I'm a little torn about how to talk about the acting in the film. Because the performances are technically motion capture performances, we do have the actors giving the live performances in front of a camera. It's only after the filming is done that the animation is laid over their acting. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) claims that the performances are vocal ones, and seeing as the actual actors aren't really seen on-screen, I suppose that's how they have to be reviewed. In that sense, the vocal acting is simply stunning. Bell is great, but I think that Serkis and Craig deserve a lot of mention. We also get some comic relief from the likes of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

The real shining moment of this film, however, is in its screenplay. Spielberg steals a page from his own playbook by bringing us a very Raiders of the Lost Ark-esque film, and it plays out almost as wonderfully. The story's scope is enormous, and the action and adventure run non-stop from start to finish. At the same time, however, we're getting a lot of comedy along the way, just like in the Indiana Jones franchise of old. I also thought the characters were written incredibly well, even if some of their relationships - mostly the one between Tintin and Haddock - echoed some former relationships from the Indy franchise (i.e., Indiana and Henry Jones Sr.). The story also offers just the right amount of twists and turns, and it's enough to keep the audience guessing until the very last scene. The screenwriters did a fantastic job with this one.

I also want to applaud the film's musical score, which was composed by the always-great John Williams. Last year, I heard Williams comment that his score for this film would be just as iconic as the scores he composed for Jaws and Star Wars, and although this one will probably never reach that particular echelon, I do have to say that it proved to be fantastic and fit the film's tone incredibly well. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, The Adventures of Tintin met and surpassed my every expectation. I have to say that I think Spielberg and Jackson have made quite the combination and have produced a fantastic film, and I wouldn't be surprised were they to collaborate again and craft a sequel to this one. They've left the possibility open, so if this film's success can translate to box office gross, then we should be seeing another Tintin adventure somewhere on the distant horizon. If you haven't had a chance to see this film, I think you need to do yourself a favor and get a theater as quickly as possible.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
2 Thumbs Up