Movie Review: SLITHER

SLITHER

2006

R

"Don't let them in your mouth!"

-- Bill Pardy

Slither is a 2006 horror-comedy written and directed by James Gunn that serves as a well-made, contemporary B-movie. When a meteorite containing an alien parasite crash lands in the woods outside Wheelsy, South Carolina, it may have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for the drunken shenanigans of Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) and Brenda Gutierrez (Brenda James). Grant stumbles upon the creeping crawling creature which shoots a dart into his stomach that maneuvers its way into his brain. Over the next few days, Grant develops a number of rashes, and his personality begins to change, much to the concern of his wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks). As more time passes, Grant's condition worsens, and it's apparent that something truly alien has started to take control of his body. He goes on a rampage, killing a number of pets and livestock around the community, and he attacks and kidnaps Brenda. In an effort to catch Grant, Starla and the local police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) lead a group of deputies and townspeople in an effort to find him. Little do they know that Grant has laid a trap for them that will unleash an entirely new terror on the town of Wheelsy, and possibly, the entire world.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film back when it was set to be released, and I thought it was an interesting idea for a revamped B-movie. At the time, I wasn't necessarily gung-ho about seeing it, but as time went by and it managed to scare up some relatively positive reviews, I got it in my mind to give it a view. It never really dropped off my radar, but I wasn't as into the horror genre back then as I am now, so I just never took the time to give it a chance. But now, with it much more accessible to me than it has been in the past, I figured now was the best time to take this horror-comedy in.

Like many B-movies, Slither takes a look at what might happen if there were some sort of alien attack on humankind. This time, we're delving into the backwoods of South Carolina, taking a look at how one small town responded to a vicious parasitic attack on its populace. Needless to say, the film ends like so many others have before: with a very large body count and enough gleeful gore to satisfy the gore-hounds. The screenplay offers a good send-up of your classic horror B-movies, and once you can settle into that frame of mind, you can let the mindless entertainment ensue.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect too much in terms of storyline. It's a humdrum tale of people reacting to a given situation, and that's exactly how it should be. Because of this, however, three other facets need to step up in order to make this a successful film. First, we have to have believable characters with whom we can mildly relate. Banks and Fillion fill those shoes well enough, and although I wouldn't go as far as to say I cared for their characters, I did find myself rooting for them to make it through. Second, the dialogue needs to be catchy and fresh. Slither also succeeds here. The dialogue felt realistic, and it did enough to keep me smiling from start to finish.

Finally, a successful horror-comedy has to deliver the scares as well as the laughs. While it's not as side-splittingly funny as, say, Shaun of the Dead, there's still plenty to laugh about here and there, and most of it comes from dialogue. Kudos to the screenwriter, as well as the actors, for having the comedic timing and sensibilities to pull this one off. In terms of scares, there aren't really any moments of suspense or times where you'll jump out of your seat. In true B-movie fashion, Slither instead goes for the jugular, almost literally. It attempts to shock you by its level of gore, and I do have to say that the filmmakers created a rather disgusting creature for all of us to "enjoy."

Because Slither manages to succeed on its three most important facets, it has to be considered a successful film. Each of these facets help make it an entertaining and mindless romp, and it should never be taken as more than such. Just know going in that you're going to be in for some slightly sickening images here and there, so those of you with an easily upset stomach might want to beware. Aside from that, throw Slither into your "movies to watch" list because it's a hell of a good time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PSYCHO

PSYCHO

1960

R

"She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

-- Norman Bates

Psycho is a 1960 horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that many consider to be one of the director's greatest achievements. The story begins in Phoenix, Arizona, where a young secretary named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) embezzles forty-thousand dollars from her employer then skips town in the hopes of running away with her long-distance boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin), who lives in the small town of Fairvale, California. As Marion makes her way north, she stumbles upon the Bates Motel, a small establishment off the main highway, and decides to stay the night before pushing on to her destination. She meets the young Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the caretaker of the motel, and after exchanging some pleasantries, Marion elects to turn in for the night. Before bed, however, she opts to take a shower...

I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to find many a film fan who doesn't know the next sequence of events, as Psycho's shower scene has reached a certain stature of fame, or infamy, over the years. From that scene, the rest of the film serves more as a mystery than as a horror film, but none of that really takes away from the fact that Psycho manages to be one of the greatest films ever made. 

For me, Psycho has been a recognizable film for as long as I can remember. To be honest, my first interaction with it was a rather negative one. When I was about four years old, my family decided to take a trip to Universal Studios Hollywood. The park had a "special effects stage" attraction, where one of the rooms focused on the cinematography of Hitchcock's films. At such a young age, I was introduced to the shower scene, and I was absolutely horrified. I instantly became terrified of bathrooms and showers, and it took me quite a while to get past that fear. In addition, it took me another sixteen years before I could sit down and watch Psycho in its entirety, but boy am I glad that I did. 

The history of the film itself is a rather incredible one itself. The making of the film is chronicled well in David Thomson's book The Moment of Psycho, and Thomson offers some interesting insight on the film as well, if you have a chance to read it. One of my favorite little tidbits about the film's release is the fact that Hitchcock essentially forbade anyone from entering theaters after the film had begun to play (a tactic that is alluded to in the trailer at the end of this review). His reasoning? Hitchcock thought that a viewer needed to see Psycho from the very start lest they miss an important piece of information. It was a truly groundbreaking idea for the time, and audiences ate it up. 

Over the years, Psycho has become considered one of the most groundbreaking and important films to appear in cinematic history. Arguably Hitchcock's finest film, it does manage to live up to all the hype. The screenplay itself is a wonderfully-written mystery that almost plays as two separate stories. In the first half, we have a tale of love, crime and extortion, but as soon as the shower scene occurs and we as the audience lose our main focal point in Janet Leigh, we're left a little bit adrift. That's when storyline two kicks in, and we're thrown into the midst of a murder mystery in which we think we know the answer. The kicker? Well, I'll leave that to the film and to Hitchcock. What's truly great about the screenplay, however, is that in the midst of all this horror, confusion and mystery, we still get an ample supply of comedy. If you pay close attention, there's a number of bits of dialogue that are meant to be played out for comedic effect, and they're so perfectly-placed that they might even manage to draw a bit of out-loud laughter. Essentially, this screenplay has it all: horror, mystery, comedy, drama and romance. It brings it all together in such an effective manner that there just might be something for everyone.

While the storyline tends to ebb and flow throughout the film, one thing that does remain consistent is the high level of acting performances we receive. Leigh starts out as the apparent lead, and she does an incredible job with the role. At times, she manages to seem both vulnerable and invincible at once, and it's this duality that makes her both appealing and fascinating until her untimely and sudden demise. From there, the disillusioned audience has no choice but to pick up on the film's seeming sub-lead: Perkins's Norman Bates. And let me tell you, Perkins steals the show. The more I watch the film, the more I become mesmerized by just how strong a performance Perkins manages to bring forth. It's a subtle but profound type of brilliance, and I think it's often under-appreciated. Perkins slips through so many emotions even in the course of only one scene that it might be difficult for the casual viewer to keep up with it all, but I would argue that he brought forth one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. 

The rest of the cast fills out rather well mostly because each person plays their part to a tee. Vera Miles comes in for a supporting role as Marion's distraught sister. She teams up with Gavin's Loomis hoping to find answers. Gavin is probably the weakest link in the film (a thought that Hitchcock shared), but even he isn't all that terrible. It's just that, in comparison to the talent around him, there just wasn't any way for him to keep up. Of all the supporting characters, however, I have to tip my hat most to Martin Balsam, who plays the private detective Milton Arbogast. He's a wonderfully-consistent addition to the cast, and he and Perkins combine for one of the film's best scenes. It's just a well-rounded cast all around, and I think the acting in the film has taken a bit of a back seat to the screenplay and the direction itself. Someone needs to herald it, so why shouldn't I?

One of the most effective components of Psycho, however, is its cinematic score. Composed by Bernard Herrmann, I can't quite say it's the most instantly recognizable pieces of music, but it definitely has to be high on the list. Though not quite as iconic as, say, John Williams's score for Jaws, I think Herrmann still managed to create something truly brilliant with his score. The bit from the shower sequence might be the most recognizable from the film, but the rest of the score is so splendidly-crafted that it's hard no to enjoy it from start to finish.

At the end of the day, Psycho proves to rank near, if not at, the top of the list of horror films, and it also manages to be ranked very highly on the list of greatest films of all time. I myself would have to place it within the top five greatest films I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a bit considering the amount of films I've seen. If you haven't had a chance to take in this iconic film, then maybe this Halloween season should be the time to do so. It's not as terrifying as it may have used to be, but it's still so profound that it's easy to understand why it's reached such an idolized place in cinematic history. Congratulations, Mr. Hitchcock. You created a masterpiece.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: LOOPER

LOOPER

2012

R

"The only rule is: never let your target escape."

-- Joe

Looper is a 2012 sci-fi action film written and directed by Rian Johnson that serves as his third directorial effort, and his first since 2008's The Brothers Bloom. The story tells the tale of a futuristic world in which time travel exists but is outlawed, used only by major crime syndicates for purposes of disposal. These syndicates will send victims back in time where men known as "loopers" wait for them only to execute them on sight. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is such a man, and he maintains an extravagant lifestyle as a result of his career. One day, as Joe waits for his victim, or "loop," he finds an older version of himself (Bruce Willis) kneeling before him. After a moment's hesitation, Young Joe allows Old Joe to escape, sparking a massive manhunt by Young Joe's company to find the older man. As Young Joe and Old Joe start to interact through their meetings, light is shed on the elder Joe's current agenda for transforming his future into something much more desirable.

I apologize if the above synopsis seems a little bit shoddy, but I don't want to give away too much information about the plot and the storyline. What I wrote, along with the trailer posted below, really gives away the first half of the film. It's the second act that proves to be a little bit astonishing, and I'd rather not be the one to give it all away.

I've been anxiously awaiting this film for quite a while. Many of my readers will know that I have a bit of a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and that might have played a part in me seeing this film as soon as I did. The real selling point for me, however, is the return of a collaboration between Gordon-Levitt and director Johnson, who first joined forces for 2005's Brick. I'm sure that fact has probably been mentioned in every single review for Looper thus far, but I figured I'd reiterate it. Because I loved that film so much, the idea of another film from the two seemed like a gift-wrapped present at Christmas. What I'm here to tell you is that Looper does not disappoint. It's opened to some fantastic reviews - it currently holds a ninety-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - and that only fueled the fire for me to get to a theater and see it as soon as I possibly could.

Let's start with the screenplay, shall we? In the past, a number of successful film franchises, such as Back to the Future and those little Terminator films, have dealt with the concept of time travel. For whatever reason, the plot device has remained a viable option for filmmakers in today's society as well, but I don't think I've ever seen it quite done like this. Johnson manages to create a cinematic world where the idea of time travel can understandably exist, and yet, he never takes the time to spell out the precise details for such an existence. Instead, he gives us just enough information for the audience to understand and believe the capability, and it's this tactic that sets Looper apart from the some of the other great time travel flicks. Rather than trying to bash the viewer over the head with drawn-out explanations, Johnson allows the explanation to be this simple: it exists, and it works. For the most part, that's all we need to know.

From there, the film plays out in a relatively straight-forward manner. Anytime you involve time travel, there are going to be a few moments where things can get a little confusing, but the screenplay does well to keep things from getting too convoluted. At the end of the day, I couldn't see any major issues with logic and continuity within the constructs of the story, but some nitpickers will surely find a few minor details here and there. The screenplay does go on to excel in the second half of the film, blending action sequences with a number of thrills and some fantastic plot twists towards film's end. While some of the storyline becomes a tad bit predictable, I can honestly say that I was not expecting the film's ultimately finale, one that just might blow your mind.

To bring this screenplay together, we'd need a pretty good cast, and that's just what we're getting. Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as Young Joe, and with a fantastic bit of make-up, he does his best Bruce Willis impression. In the early going, it's uncanny just how much the young actor mimics the likeness of the veteran, and I have to say I was thoroughly impressed. Willis himself also brings a strong performance to the screen. Always one of my favorite actors, I can honestly say that I don't think I've seen him bring forth this strong a character since his turn in 2005's Sin City. I might even go as far back as The Sixth Sense in 1999, if I think about it. Kudos to these two leading men for crafting engaging on-screen characters.

Now, the rest of the cast fills out incredibly well, and you're going to see quite a few familiar faces. Emily Blunt offers a great performance as our leading lady. She continues to impress me with her acting prowess. Also be on the lookout for the likes of Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano and Garret Dillahunt, each of whom brings a great bit to the screen. Where I was truly impressed, however, was with the performance of young actor Pierce Gagnon, appearing in only his third feature film. Even for such a young age, he brought quite a presence and power to the screen, which was definitely a necessity for his particular character. To stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt is quite a feat, but the young Gagnon manages to do just that.

At the end of the day, Looper is a fantastic film, as well as an incredible addition to the science-fiction canon. Sure, it has a few minor flaws here and there, but with any film involving time travel, a bit of disbelief is a bit necessary. If you can let yourself get lost in this world and this story, I don't think there's any reason you won't enjoy the film. Rian Johnson strikes yet again, and I can't wait for his net endeavor.

 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Should See

Movie Review: MELANCHOLIA

MELANCHOLIA

2011

R

"Hold my hand. Close your eyes."

-- Justine

Melancholia is a 2011 dramatic arthouse film directed by Lars von Trier that delves into the concepts of depression and disaster. In the midst of her wedding celebration, new bride Justine (Kirsten Dunst) unwittingly falls victim to a number of outside circumstances that keep her from enjoying what should be the happiest day of her life. Her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) continually pester her about her mood, and she withstands a number of confrontations from her employer (Stellan Skarsgård) about work-related issues. Her mood swings affect her new husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgård), and at the end of the night, Justine finds herself without a husband and without a job. The film then transitions to its main story: Justine has fallen into a deep depression, and the world watches as a rogue planet called Melancholia heads on a course for a fly-by of Earth. Justine comes to stay with Claire and her family, and she slowly gets back on her feet. Around the same time, Claire begins to worry that Melancholia might, in fact, collide with Earth, causing the end of the world as she knows it.

I first heard about Melancholia as it made its way through the film festival circuits back in early 2011. Dunst managed to nab the Best Actress Award at the Cannes Film Festival, a feat which sparked early Oscar buzz for her performance. The film itself would go on to be selected as the best film of 2011 by the U.S. National Society of Film Critics, and it managed to score a number of nominations and wins at ceremonies around the world. But it was the performance of Dunst, whom has been both good and bad over the years, that truly drew my personal interest in the film. Little did I know that von Trier had something truly special hidden up his sleeve.

I think I need to start with this disclaimer before I get into my overall review: Melancholia is an arthouse film, and it's not going to appeal to all viewers and audiences. Fortunately, the film's opening sequence will set the stage for whether or not you are personally going to make it through the over two-hour venture. The film opens in true arthouse fashion with a number of seemingly random sequences that are sure to confuse many. I myself was scratching my head at the very outset, wondering what exactly I was getting myself into. If you're already turned off by the opening sequence, then Melancholia might not be the flick for you, but if it offers you a sense of intrigue, I implore you to keep watching.

As I previously stated, the film delves into the deepest realms of depression and disaster. It's not the easiest film to watch, and it certainly doesn't offer any real happy ending. It's going to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth, but I think that's the point. The storyline itself is relatively rudimentary, but it's the subtle nuances about the screenplay that bring this film to life. The events taking place in the world outside of the film's characters are merely the pieces that keep time moving forward. Melancholia is more about investing yourself in the characters and the emotions they convey. The brilliance in the screenplay stems from the wonderfully-written characters. Even the characters we only see for a moment seem perfectly-placed, and it gives the film a true sense of reality and validity.

The best part of the screenplay, in my opinion, is von Trier's look at the world of depression. Having had my own issues with mental illness, I'd be lying if I said I didn't take a personal emotional interest in the cinematic look at this world so familiar to me. Von Trier himself has had his own issues with depression, and it was these circumstances that led him to craft this particular film. What he creates is one of the most honest and heartbreaking looks at a person with depression, and for that alone, I have to applaud the filmmaker and writer.

This character-driven creation would have never come to life were it not for the stellar cast that von Trier was able to bring together. Dunst is a revelation as one of our principal leads, and I'm left scratching my head, wondering how she was left off last year's Oscar ballot. This is a role unlike any she has ever taken before, and she knocks it out of the park. I laughed with her Justine, I cried with her, I fell to the very depths of sanity with her. When an actor is capable of bringing the viewer on that kind of emotional ride, you know they're doing something right. What's incredible is that Gainsbourg is just as good as Dunst, and it's almost unfair to think that this film managed to snag two fantastic performances. Between the two, it's easily one of the best pairs of performances I've seen together in one film in the last few years. Dunst may take the cake, but Gainsbourg is definitely having a slice or two. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, with both the elder and younger Skarsgård offering solid, albeit small, performances. Sutherland also does well with his bit, but he's overshadowed by his female counterparts. Also be on the watch for a great bit piece from John Hurt.

As I said before, Melancholia is not going to be a film that everyone will enjoy. If you've watched other arthouse fare and had trouble remaining engaged, then you might want to pass this one by. However, I personally found it to be an incredible cinematic feat, and Dunst's performance alone is enough to give it recommendation. If you have the patience for it, I'm sure Melancholia will deliver for you in the way it delivered for me.
 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: LAWLESS

LAWLESS

2012

R

"I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody."

-- Forrest Bondurant

Lawless is a 2012 crime drama directed by John Hillcoat that is adapted from Matt Bondurant's 2008 novel, The Wettest County in the World. The story follows the Bondurants, a family of three brothers led by the eldest Forrest (Tom Hardy), who run an illegal moonshine business in Franklin County, Virginia in the midst of the Prohibition era. With the help of his brothers Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest has become one of the biggest suppliers of moonshine in the county. One day, a special deputy from Chicago named Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is brought into the county in order to destroy the bootlegging businesses, and he immediately clashes with the Bondurant clan. He starts to rid the county of its numerous illegal distilleries, and he soon starts a personal vendetta against Forrest Bondurant. Youngest brother Jack finds a way to keep the business afloat, only increasing the tension between the brothers and the ever-present Rakes.

I first heard about this film about a year ago when it was still to be titled The Wettest County in the World. At the time, I took a passing glance, noticing it merely for its casting star power, but it didn't necessarily ring a bell as a must-see. When the film's trailer was released, however, something about the stylistic grittiness compelled me to at least give it a view. The film has opened to moderately positive reviews, but I can't quite say they've been entirely stellar thus far.

One of the biggest issues most critics - including myself - have had with Lawless is its screenplay. While there's definitely a strong and emotional story of family bonds and revenge hidden beneath it all, there seems to be a little too much extra storyline given to the film. At its core, the story should be about the three brothers and their loyalty to one another, regardless of how much they drive one another crazy. There were a few ancillary characters that turned out to be more important than they should have been, and it ultimately helps to bog down the story a little bit. Despite this, the film's climax and finale still prove to be quite strong, even with the obstacles along the way.

Where this film's strength truly lies is in its cast. Now, I have to start by saying that I have never been much of a fan of Shia LaBeouf. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but there have been times where I have downright hated his presence on-screen. However, I think Lawless will ultimately be the film where we as the audience see LaBeouf mature into a legitimate actor right before our very eyes. At the start of the film, he almost seems a little bit of touch, as he often does, but by film's end, there's a power and a grace to his acting ability that I haven't seen him convey before. I have to tip my hat to the young actor for breaking out of his acting shell and transforming (pun intended) himself into something entirely different.

The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely as well. Tom Hardy continues to prove to me that he is one of the better actors working in Hollywood today. You can place his performance in Lawless right next to his noteworthy turns in 2009's Bronson and 2011's Warrior. Pearce is also great as the film's central villain, and I thought he brought the film's second-best character (behind Hardy's Forrest) to the screen. Also worth mention for their smaller, albeit not entirely necessary, roles are Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, who all manage to bring strong performances to the film.

At the end of the day, Lawless manages to bring together a very strong ensemble cast that ultimately falls prey to a less-than-stellar screenplay. Still, the strength of the performances helps to keep this film afloat, and an emotional second act gives the audience an opportunity to stay engaged and involved with the events on-screen. See it for Hardy and Pearce's performances, and be surprised by the growth of Shia LaBeouf into a legitimate actor.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: AMERICAN PSYCHO

AMERICAN PSYCHO

2000

NC-17

"I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?"

-- Patrick Bateman

American Psycho is a 2000 satirical thriller directed by Mary Harron that serves as a film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a young Wall Street executive named Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) living the yuppie culture of the 1980s. Believing himself to be better than his peers, he delves into materialism and greed so that he can stay ahead of the curve, all while trying to "fit in." He admits that his emotionless lifestyle leaves him very bored, and that has led to a sort of nighttime blood-lust that's slowly creeping into his everyday activities. His homicidal desires reach a peak when a colleague named Paul Allen (Jared Leto) proves himself to be better-off than Bateman is, and in retaliation, Patrick crafts a plot to murder him. This experience only goes to further Bateman's string of psychotic episodes, leaving him in a state where he can't quite determine what's really and what's imagined.

My first interaction with American Psycho came with Bravo's television special "30 Even Scarier Movie Moments," which aired in October 2006 and served as a sequel to their original mini-series, "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments." The 2006 special included the scene where Bale's Bateman murders Leto's Paul Allen, and that little snippet of a scene managed to hook my interest. I soon hunted down the film and gave it a view, and I was instantly confused about what it all meant. It was quite a bit to take in, and over the years, I've managed to see the film on a few other occasions. And yet, even after this particular viewing, I don't quite know what's going on during American Psycho.

At its core, the film is truly a satire about the materialistic and greedy culture of the 1980s. We see a number of Wall Street businessmen doing their best to stay ahead of the curve their colleagues set, all the while delving into basic carnal needs to satisfy their lives' emptiness. Bateman does the same, but takes his methods of satisfaction to an entirely different level with his need for violence. For the first half of the film, all that seems fine and dandy. However, as soon as Bateman goes through with his plot against Allen, we see the strings of his sanity start to come a little bit loose. He's not sure exactly what's real in his life anymore, and by association, we as the audience aren't quite sure either. It all leads up to a very vague finale that's probably leaving the interpretation open and on the table. I can honestly say that three-quarters of the way through the film, I'm sure I know what's going on, but as soon as the final scene fades to the credits, my ideas have changed, and I'm not sure at all.

What is grounded in reliable fact is the strength of the central performance from Christian Bale. While the film offers strong, albeit small, roles from familiar faces like Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Reese Witherspoon, Chloë Sevigny and Willem Dafoe, this is really Bale's vehicle, and he's the one who demands all the attention. Even in the more mundane scenes, where we see Patrick going through his every morning routine, you can't help but be encapsulated by Bale's character. At times, he manages to show absolutely no emotion on his face, and given that's the character's biggest identifier, I have to say I'm always thoroughly impressed. As Bateman spirals into insanity, however, Bale becomes a little more over-the-top, but never so much that he becomes unbelievable. As strange as the character may seem today to today's audiences in 2012, Bale always makes Patrick Bateman believable.

At the end of the day, I'm not quite sure what the real drawing power of American Psycho proves to be. Bale's performance is enough to keep me watching, but I think it's the open-endedness of the ending that will keep bringing most viewers back. I've heard many a fan argue both sides of the spectrum, and I have my own ideas as well, but I'll refrain from going into detail about them here. From the outset, American Psycho was toted as a big deal: at its debut at Sundance in 2000, it was hailed as the "next Fight Club." And while I don't think it quite measures up to that 1999 masterpiece, I do think that, given enough time, American Psycho will be held with the same such clout and respect.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: PREMIUM RUSH

PREMIUM RUSH

2012

PG-13

"I like to ride. Fixed gear. No brakes. Can't stop. Don't want to, either."

-- Wilee

Premium Rush is a 2012 action thriller directed by David Koepp that focuses on a group of bike messengers making a living on the fast-paced streets of New York City. We meet a young cyclist named Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a former law student, who uses his job as a bike messenger to supply him with an ample number of thrills in his life. His fellow messenger and girlfriend Vanessa (Dania Ramirez) thinks he has a death wish with the way he rides, but Wilee simply thinks he lives for the rush. After losing out on one delivery, Wilee asks his boss to give him another route before the end of the day, and he luckily receives one last job from his friend Nima (Jamie Chung), who needs an envelope delivered to Chinatown by seven o'clock that night. After he picks up the envelope, however, Wilee is confronted by a mysterious man (Michael Shannon), who continually attempts to steal the envelope from him. As the clock continues to race toward his deadline, Wilee begins to piece together a much larger plot into which he has unwillingly been made a pawn.

When I first heard about this film, I was immediately drawn to it based solely on the fact that Gordon-Levitt would star. Arguably my favorite actor at the moment, I'll go out of my way to see any of his films, and seeing as Premium Rush is arguably the biggest release this weekend, there really wasn't much debate as to what I would be seeing. Although I wasn't really expecting it to be a brilliant film, I did hope that it would at least be entertaining, and the early, mostly-positive reviews helped quell any real fears I had going in.

What Premium Rush ultimately offers is a fast-paced, action-packed, end-of-the-summer thrill ride. The storyline doesn't necessarily offer much, although it does allow for a number of moderately emotional scenes and concepts, but at the end of the day, it's a basic and rote screenplay that doesn't truly offer anything utterly brilliant. What sets Premium Rush apart is the stylistic power of the direction and the cast itself.

Let's start with our actors, shall we? Now, I have to be honest and say that I do have a bit of a man crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and thus far in his film career, I have yet to see him do any wrong. He's managed to create so many different characters, and his Wilee in Premium Rush is no exception. This may be the most "badass" he's gone thus far in his career (although that's sure to be challenged by the soon-to-be-released Looper), and he plays the part perfectly. I also have to applaud Shannon, who is generally a hit-or-miss actor for me. While I thought Shannon was brilliant in the 2010 film The Runaways, I wasn't sold on his bit part in 2008's Revolutionary Road. With him, it always goes back and forth. At the start of Premium Rush, I wanted to hate his character. It seemed over-the-top and ridiculous, but as the film continued forth, I think it made a little more sense. By film's end, I truly thought he was a great antagonist for a picture like this. It worked well. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, but the best scenes come between Gordon-Levitt and Shannon. That's where the meat of this film lies.

But aside from all of that, what truly makes Premium Rush a success is its stylistic production. For starters, setting the story against the backdrop of New York City, one of the fastest-paced cities in the world, was a perfect decision. Having visited New York on a number of occasions, I know just how hustle-bustle those streets can get, and to see bicyclists moving even faster in order to make their deliveries seems incredible. The setting helps make the film seem like its moving even faster than it is, and that works in this film's favor. Because it's not offering a brilliant screenplay or Oscar-winning performances, it has to rely on its ability to grab hold of its viewer and its ability to keep that viewer engaged. And from the very start, Premium Rush does just that. Once it grabs hold, it never once takes it foot off the pedal, so to speak. And that rush of exhilaration is what makes it so darn good.

To sum things up, Premium Rush is the ideal type of end-of-the-summer cinema fare. It's not a film that's too deep to understand, but it's also not too dumb to make it unwatchable. The story is strong enough to keep you caring, but it's the direction and the action that's going to keep you entertained. So sit back, relax and grab a bucket of popcorn because this is one wild ride.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: JOHN CARTER

JOHN CARTER

2012

PG-13

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign that something new can come into this world."

-- Tars Tarkas

John Carter is a 2012 science-fiction action film directed by Andrew Stanton that serves as his first major directorial foray into the realm of live-action cinema. Based off the first novel from Edgar Rice Borrough's Barsoom series, the film tells the story of Civil War veteran John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who finds himself mysteriously transported to an unknown world called Barsoom. Upon his arrival, he is captured by a race of strange creatures known as the Tharks, led by a creature called Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe). After proving his warrior merit, Tars Tarkas admits John into his tribe and claims that he will help the Tharks defeat their enemies. Never one to fight for a cause, Carter tries to back out of the duty but is swayed after saving a young woman named Dejah Thoris (voiced by Lynn Collins). She explains to John that Barsoom is what he knows to be Mars, and that her world is slowly dying. The constant struggle between her home city of Helium and the enemy city of Zodanga has brought the world to its breaking point, and she believes that John is the man who can make a change. Although he initially avoids the fight, John finally decides to battle for the good of Barsoom.

When Disney prepared to release John Carter, they had expected it to be their next big franchise. With a $250 million budget and an accomplished director at the helm, who was to say that it wouldn't be a smash hit? Still, in the months prior to its release, I don't recall seeing many trailers for the film, and I don't think it really got as much publicity as it needed. Added to the mixed reviews it received from the critical community, and John Carter simply did not perform at the box office. Ultimately, the film barely made back all the money it cost to make, and it finally settled for a tiny $30 million profit. Still, I had every desire to see the film but never had the chance to do so while it played in theaters. And so, to RedBox I went.

The first thing you're going to notice about John Carter is that it's mildly confusing. Now, I've seen plenty of movies with screenplays that make little to no sense, and this one definitely doesn't rank amongst those dregs. However, from the very get-go, you're going to be scratching your head wondering exactly what's going on. We get the basic idea: a man is transported to Mars, where he is captured and all that jazz, but there's little things going on in between that make for a little bit of confusion. It's almost as though we're feeling the same confusion that the John Carter character must be feeling upon his transport, and if that was Stanton's aim, then kudos to him. As the film continues along, however, it ultimately falls into a rote action flick that becomes very predictable very, very quickly. The breath of imagination quickly leaves the film, and I was left wondering how the man who wrote and directed both Finding Nemo and WALL-E could bring forth something so pedestrian.

One thing I did like about the film's storyline, however, was the parallels between the Barsoomian people's war and the American Civil War in which Carter himself fought. We're seeing two opposing cities (a la the North and the South) do battle against one another while a more rudimentary culture (a la the Native Americans) stands by and watches from the side. In that sense, the film does bring something rather interesting, but it serves more as a basis for Stanton's entire concept than as a plot point itself.

The cast in the film does a serviceable job throughout, but I wasn't really overly impressed by anyone in particualr. Kitsch, whose biggest claim to fame is his role on TV's "Friday Night Lights," does well with the role, but it doesn't seem like there was a lot to go with. He has the necessary physique for the action sequences, but with only a small bit of intelligent dialogue, there really wasn't much for him to do. Collins falls into the same category, bringing out the character but not bringing anything overly fantastic. We do get some nice vocal performances from the likes of Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church (in a small bit), as well as some slightly stronger live-action roles from the likes of Mark Strong and Dominic West. And there's even some very small roles from people like Ciarán Hinds, Bryan Cranston and Daryl Sabara, but they're here and gone relatively quickly.

The one thing that John Carter does have going for it is its special effects which are sure to dazzle. Although I'm not quite sure it's anything truly spectacular, I'm sure seeing this Barsoomian world on the big screen was quite a sight to behold. After the visual brilliance of a film like WALL-E, I'm glad to see that Stanton didn't lose sight of his visual performance, even if the rest of the film doesn't quite measure up.

At the end of the day, John Carter is a relatively uneven action film that falls into standard cliché very quickly. Still, there's enough to keep you engaged throughout the film, even if you're going to be a tad bit confused from time to time. Viewers beware: this one runs a bit longer than two hours, and the film starts to overstay its welcome around the ninety-minute mark.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C-

Status: Don't Need to See

Movie Review: THE BRIDGE

THE BRIDGE

2006
R



"I don't know why people kill themselves. And yet, it's a small step to empathize... to say... well, because I think we all experience moments of despair."

-- Caroline Pressley

The Bridge is a 2006 documentary directed by Eric Steel that offers a rare insight into the taboo subject of suicide. In 2004, Steel and his crew set up a number of cameras around the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California in order to capture victims of suicide jumping to their deaths. After gaining over ten thousand hours of footage, the crew learned they had caught twenty-three of the reported twenty-four suicides that took place over the course of the year. In the aftermath, Steel and his fellow filmmakers chose to interview the family and friends of the victims in order to gain insight into both the minds of the deceased as well as their own perspectives on the tragic situation. 

Those of you who have been reading my reviews for quite some time may remember my original review of this film nearly two years ago. I had mixed feelings about the film, but ultimately found it to be a hauntingly brilliant look at the thoughts and emotions that come forth at the hands of a suicide. After watching it tonight for the second time, I am reaffirmed in my stance, and I continue to think that The Bridge is one of the greatest - as well as one of the bravest - documentaries ever brought to the silver screen.

I don't think I can get away with saying that yesterday's tragic death of director Tony Scott helped influence my decision to give this film another go-around. Since then, I've heard a lot of people, including some of my readers, question why Scott would choose to take his own life. I've made it no secret that I myself have struggled with depression and mental illness in the past, I can understand just how low a person needs to be to consider this option. Still, it can be mind-boggling for an individual who has never reached that level of despair. 

That's why I think The Bridge is both so beautiful and so important. Through the numerous interviews with family and friends - as well as one with a jump survivor - we as the audience experience the full range of imaginable emotions tied to losing a loved one to suicide. From anger to guilt to acceptance, each interviewee offers another piece of the puzzle. And yet, at the end of the day, the film does not offer any answers, but it never truly sets out to give them.

The Bridge is not a film you're going to enjoy. It's a heart-wrenching look at a very real subject, and it's definitely not for the faint of heart. However, I think the stories it tells are vital to raising awareness for problems such as mental illness. There's so many people in the world who don't understand the concept of depression, and sometimes, it takes a drastic measure for someone to start to think about it. That's not the way the world should be. When I first watched the film in 2010, my closest friend watched it simultaneously from about five hundred miles away, and after finishing the film, we had a chance to discuss it at length. In my previous review, I brought up a number of her comments, and I'd like to bring one back in this review, as I think it sums up my thoughts on the film perfectly: 

I don't think you're supposed to like [The Bridge], but I do think it was beautifully and tastefully done. As beautiful and as tasteful as you can get with suicide, at least.

I don't think I could agree more.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Must-See

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: THE PLEDGE

THE PLEDGE

2001

R

"I made a promise, Eric. You're old enough to remember when that meant something."

-- Jerry Black

The Pledge is a 2001 dramatic film directed by Sean Penn that centers around one man's obsession with solving a murder mystery. On the day of his retirement, Detective Jerry Black (Jack Nicholson) tags along on a call for the rape and murder of a young girl. It falls into his hands to tell the girl's parents of the tragedy, and to give them assurance and peace of mind, he promises to bring the culprit to justice. The police soon find their prime suspect, but Jerry doesn't believe this man to be the true perpetrator. Still, he lets bygones be bygones and starts on his retirement, ultimately settling in a small Nevada town. He starts a relationship with a young waitress named Lori (Robin Wright) and her daughter, and though his life is moving forward, he can never shake the case from his mind. It continues to gnaw at him until a string of events occur that cause him to look into the case once again.

I first heard about The Pledge after reading about it in Leonard Maltin's book, 151 Movies You've Never Seen. I started to see it listed on NetFlix's Instant Watch, and I was ultimately drawn to the film by its loaded cast. What I couldn't really know was just what type of film I'd be getting myself into.

The film's screenplay is a slow but delicate piece that manages to keep the viewer engaged despite its plodding pace. In the first part of the film, things seem to move quickly, but as soon as Jerry makes his move to retirement, everything slows down to a crawl. It's only in the film's seemingly anti-climactic finale that the speed kicks up again, but we're left scratching our heads as the credits start to roll. However, the pacing seems to work within the constructs of the film. The manic start and end satisfy the need for a bit of action, but the slow-moving pieces in between help give us a sense of Jerry's character. At the same time, we can see him formulating a plan for catching this mysterious monster, and it all helps work toward the effectiveness of the finale. I previously stated that the ending seemed a tad bit anti-climactic, but that's only true to the untrained eye. The Pledge's story actually offers a completely devastating and depressing conclusion, giving a somewhat satisfying finish to the entire endeavor.

Bolstering the solid screenplay is the fantastic work of the cast, which is essentially a who's-who of big-time Hollywood stars. Nicholson is the film's centerpiece, and he provides one of the better roles of his career, bringing a slew of emotions to the Jerry character. His work with the conclusion helps bring the brilliance of the film as a whole, and simply have to applaud the three-time Oscar winner. Wright also manages to bring forth a great turn in her supporting role, and I also thought the young Pauline Roberts did a splendid job as well. Also be on the watch for a number of great small or cameo appearances from the likes of Aaron Eckhart, Benicio Del Toro, Patricia Clarkson, Vanessa Redgrave, Mickey Rourke, Helen Mirren and Tom Noonan.

Where The Pledge most succeeds, however, is in the atmosphere it creates. Penn does a great job in crafting a realistic world where we can believe everything that's happening. As time continues to pass and another meeting with our mysterious killer looms on the horizon, the film slowly gains this very disgusting feeling, almost as though you know what's going to happen but still don't want it to come across the screen. There was a number of moments where I was sure I knew the direction the film was headed but was surreptitiously proven wrong. You just get this knot in your stomach as the film progresses, and you can only hope that, by the film's end, it will have gone away. What makes this film stand apart, however, is that it doesn't take that knot away. Instead, it gives you something to chew on and ponder well after you've finished watching. I think Maltin put it best in his book when he said the following:

The Pledge is the kind of movie that stays with you, precisely because it poses as many questions as it answers - and because Jack Nicholson makes such a lasting impression.

The combination of a stellar screenplay, a superb cast and an eerie atmosphere makes The Pledge one of the better movies I've seen of late. Kudos to Mr. Penn on this one. 

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