"The Dark Knight Rises"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Johnathon Nolan and Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hard
Warner Bros. Pictures

4.86/5 Stars
Consensus: The thought provoking conclusion the Christopher Nolan's rendition of "Batman" is a fair and lasting tribute to the greatness of the series. Not as good as The Dark Knight(2008) it is still a fantastic film that is a wonderful and triumphant conclusion to a series marked by morbid real-life events.

Plot: 8 years after the death of Gotham DA "Harvey Dent" (Aaron Eckhart) the crime rate in Gotham has dropped dramatically. Meanwhile there is "work" under the sewers of Gotham, soon discovered to be a conspiracy of masked mad-man "Bane"(Tom Hardy). "Bruce Wayne"(Christian Bale) must come out of retirement to save the city he loves so much.

Directing: Christopher Nolan as always has an eye for intensity and enthrallment. His vision of The Dark Knight has defined what a "Batman" movie should be. He continues to show his brilliance as a director in this, his final installment of Gotham's world. The creativity and eye for "edge-of-your-seat" moments has made Nolan one of the best directors of the decade. Perhaps the century. *****

Acting: Everyone is well refined in their roles. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an especially nice edition to the cast of Batman. Partially due to brilliant directing all the actors in this film are very familiar with their roles at this point, and those new-comers involved know their parts well. Criticize Anne Hathaway (Catwomen/Selina) as much as you'd like, she continues to prove her worth as an actress and this film is a great addition to her resume. She was never particularly bad to begin with (the exception being Ella Enchanted(2004)) and she does a great job in this film. *****

Editing: One thing you can always expect from a Nolan film is intense and gorgeously cut action scenes, and this film follows suit. The editing is spectacularly done and reflects the intensity and grittiness of the film extremely well. Montages with voice-overs and fantastic cuts away from main dialogue to show us what is really happening work together brilliantly in the film. Nolan is consistently has genius editing in each and every one of his films. The Dark Knight Rises is no exception. *****

Art Direction: Gritty Gotham comes to life right next to exquisite banquets and the vast and recently refinished Wayne manor looks great. The costuming is wonderful, the intentional realism all the fantastic characters from the Batman universe are given is greatly appreciated. *****

Cinematography: Batman looks as big and intimidating as ever. The shots are beautiful and the whole film is reminiscent of well done art. The smooth and non-shakey way the film is shot is especially nice for an action flick, shakey cameras that distort what is really happening are never especially appealing and are only effective within limits. The Dark Knight stays clear of this and shows us all what is happening in a smooth consistent manner. *****

Screenplay: There were some plot holes in the film, i.e. if you realize that a group of people is trying to take your nuclear bomb to a core wherein it will not detonate and thus foil your plan of terrorism, and you have access to a code to destroy said core within minutes, why would you wait until all other options are exhausted to destroy this. Why in the first place was this not destroyed, if you were indeed serious about nuking Gotham. Batman's helicopter seemed very... ex-machina and although it was super cool looking, it took the realism of the previous film away. Not a major fault in and of itself (the helicopter is super cool) but that and some cheesy one liners i.e.
"My daddy said not to get into cars with strange men!"
"This isn't a car!!"
made me cringe. They don't really ruin the film, its still fantastic, and still really well written with special attention to the intensity of the situation. That and the social commentary involved more than redeem the screenplay, but its certainly sub-par, especially in light of the previous films. Speaking of the previous films, Heath Ledger's 2008 death messed up Nolan's original plan for the third installment, so the ability to re-write the film and still make such an intense movie with such a cool plot should also be considered before we roast what is an already decent screenplay. ****

CGI/Special Effects: The coolest looking everything in this film. All the CGI looks slick and fantastic. *****

"Elf"
2003
Produced by: Shauna Robertson, Todd Komarnicki, Jon Berg
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Written by: David Berenbaum
Starring: Will Ferrell, James Caan, Bob Newhart
New Line Cinema

4/5 Stars
Consensus: An instant classic that is both hilarious and smart Elf is both engaging and appealing. An essential holiday film that delivers time and again.

Plot: "Buddy the Elf" (Will Ferrell) has been raised among Santa's elves despite being human. Upon discovering his non-elf nature he sets out on a mission to find his father, Walter (James Caan), who has been placed on Santa's naughty list.

Directing: Favreau does a fair job at directing this witty Christmas film. Ferrell is in his normal arch-type of adult-that-behaves-like-a-child, and he is with a familiar cast so I'm not sure there was much to do on the directors behalf. But there are still some very smart and satirical moments that we have to give credit for. There isn't anything super notable in the directing, but there isn't anything especially poor ya know? ***

Acting: As stated, Ferrell is just being himself, and the same arch-type he is in every film. He does a good job at it and is hilarious at what he does, he's found a niche and he milks it, which we're perfectly ok with since he does a good job. The real gem in the film is the dead-pan way "Pappa Elf" (Bob Newhart) delivers his narration. Newhart brings the entire film up several levels on the acting aspect and does a hilarious job at being so darn dead-pan. ****

Editing: There isn't anything that especially stands out again, but things are consistent and transitions smooth. Its good but not jaw dropping and there isn't much to say about it. ***

Art Direction: The art direction is hilarious actually, and extremely well done. Especially scenes at the north pole wherein we have numerous throw-backs and tributes to the classic claymation Christmas films of the 40s (ya know... Rudolph, The Year Without A Santa Claus... etc). Another especially well done piece is the decorations Buddy puts up in preparation for Santa's coming to Gimbel's. The art direction stands out in this film. ****

Cinematography: There are some well done shots, such as Buddy singing in the shower with "Jovie" (Zooey Deschanel) or the framing of Buddy as he tests "Jack-in-the-Box" toys. Nothing is so astounding that we're floored, but its well done and clean looking regardless. ****

Screenplay: Herein lies the high point of the film. Its hilarious, Buddy the Elf's lines especially and his interactions with everything are instant classics. The smart use of things we're shown early on in the film (World's Best Cup of Coffee being reused on Buddy's date with Jovie) tying in later along in the film is well appreciated. Overall the screenplay is hysterical and extremely smart whilst still appealing to a more childish side inside of all of us. It manages to have normally dumb or childish things come out extremely funny and smart. *****

CGI/Special Effects: The use of clay-mation characters in the North Pole is hysterical and witty. Santa's sleigh looks cool, as does the engine attatched to it. The use of CGI is smart and works extremely well. Great job team. *****

"It's A Wonderful Life"
1946
PG
Produced by: Frank Capra
Directed by: Frank Capra
Written by: Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Frank Capra
Starring: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore
Liberty Films (II)

4/5 Stars
Consensus: One of the most nostalgic movies of all time It's A Wonderful Life will live on as a holiday classic for years and years to come.

Plot: Local man, "George Bailey" (James Stewart) contemplates suicide after a series of misfortunes that threaten his livelihood. He is helped to overcome these feelings by his guardian angel, "Clarence" (Henry Travers).

Directing: Frank Capra directs this classic cast with warmth and appeal. Despite some mildly corny parts, the film successfully draws us in emotionally due largely to the directing in the film. Capra knew how to make a cast of relatable characters that we feel we know and care about. He is especially good at creating feelings of nostalgia and showing, rather than telling, through facial expressions and other means. You even come to love the corny parts, i.e. "George..lassos a stork!" and especially considering the censorship bureau (or whatever it was called) that existed at the time Capra does a great job at letting his more mature audiences know whats really going on while still keeping things acceptable to younger, and more vulnerable audiences. ****

Acting: Nothing tops the golden age of Hollywood's acting. They just don't come as good anymore. James Stewart and Donna Reed in particular have some of the most splendid chemistry of any screen couple in film history. Lionel Barrymore plays one of the most evil villians we love to hate (Mr. Potter) everything is splendid and done at a caliber that just doesn't seem to happen anymore, or does rarely if at all. *****

Editing: Here the film falls short as we are demonstrated some of the all time worst editing in film history. Notably bad and inconsistent there are congruence issues and dialogue even jumps occasionally. As classic as a film as this is, the editing is horrendous and good example of what not to do in your film. Very sloppy and jumpy throughout. Again there are serious congruence issues within cuts and very obvious mistakes throughout the film. It is regrettable, but over-look-able. Not that the entire film is ruined, but the editing is notably bad. *1/2

Art Direction: The sets are designed well and Bedford Falls has a nostalgic and warm feeling. The actors look good, the old house the Baileys own is a great set design. There isn't anything so astounding you won't believe it, but the art direction remains high quality none-the-less. ****

Cinematography: Especially for the time, the shots in this film are composed extremely well, and for such bad editing to boot we have to give mad props to the cinematography in this film. Its very clean and good looking. Angles and views of characters are well framed, and with cameras that were so not high def the good shooting in this film is well appreciated and evens out the bad editing. ****1/2

Screenplay: One of the cutest and most endearing screenplays out there. It has some corny moments, believe it, but its not ruinous, if anything its just cute. The talent really lies within the actors delivering their lines with sheer brilliance. The screenplay is great and develops its characters and traits extremely well. ****

CGI/Special Effects: The animated stars that glow when the angels talk at the beginning of the film look great, especially for the time. Other special effects including snow and... errm... snow... look fantastic. So... *****

"The Hobbit"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Carolynne Cunningham, Zane Weiner
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Ian McKellan, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage
New Line Cinema

4.64/5 Stars
Consensus: Although not as good as the original The Lord of The Rings trilogy, this is the best adaptation from book to novel we could ask for. With a splendid eye for detail, Peter Jackson continues to pay more than satisfying tribute to J.R.R Tolkien in this epic and splendid fantasy.

Plot: A prequel to The Lord of The Rings trilogy, the film takes place in Middle Earth and follows the unexpected adventure of one "Bilbo Baggins" (Martin Freeman) as he assists a company of dwarves in their quest to reclaim their homeland.

Directing: Jackson has an eye for middle earth and does a splendid job representing the characters in this film as well as they appeared in the 1937 book by J.R.R Tolkien. You can tell what an eye, and what a vision Jackson has for fantasy, especially in this wonderful film. His attention to minor details most would miss, except those well hearesed in Tolkien's world of middle earth is especially appealing and note-worthy. From the use of the authentic elvish language Tolkien engineered within the film to the ample tie-ins to The Lord of The Rings films, Jackson proves his worth as a director. *****

Acting: The actors in this film clearly have fun with their roles, and they should they are fun roles to play. McKellan was nominated for an academy award for his first appearance as "Gandalf" in the original The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring(2001) and lives up to par in his reappearance here. Martin Freeman as "Bilbo" is also an excellent casting choice, the high expectations laid on him by fans is well met and appealing as Freeman does fine work as the title character. Overall the acting in this film is top rate and very splendid indeed. *****

Editing: Perhaps the most appealing aspect of this film, and the entire series of Tolkien's middle earth epics, is the clean and epic cuts in the battle sequences. It is well appreciated when cameras can be held relatively still and the clips they hold therein assembled correctly so as we get to absorb as much of the cool choreographed fighting as possible. The Hobbit was particularly good at this. The other appealing element was the combination of long shots to establish location coupled with close ups and shots of the entire group traveling. The editing was smooth and consistent and very well done. *****

Art Direction: These films acheivment in art direction is baffling to me. The ability to recreate an entire universe with such an eye for detail is awe inspiring. The Shire in particular is note-worthy and looks beautiful. Goblin kingdoms, forests, and mountains are all brought into spectacular and stunning detail in this film. *****

Cinematography: The extreme long shots and effective use of location shooting in New Zealand to effectively re-create Middle Earth were both gorgeous and effective in adding to the plot of the film. The cinematography, although not especially ground-breaking was extremely reminiscent of the original films. That's what everyone expected and they got it, and it looks great. ****1/2

Screenplay: The inclusion of content from The Silmarillion(1985, novel) was fantastic and added a great amount of depth and build up to the final The Lord of The Rings plot. That said there were many delay tactics used to elongate the film so-as they could be done in 3 parts. This included singing, and thematic elements such as Bilbo's initial decision to join the dwarves at all. If these elements had been shortened, or at least been made less obvious, the screenplay and film would have been better generally. This however is both a pro and con. The details added and tactics used to elongate the film were also clever and relevant to the overall plot, when it comes to Tolkien's middle earth, longer is better, and more details create a richer environment. ****

CGI/Special Effects: This is another element wherein the film suffered to some degree. For a film as high caliber and highly anticiapted as it is/was the CGI could have been far higher quality. Not that it was horrible, but some of the more common creatures, i.e. rabbits or deer or badgers, could have been better looking. Some shots looked very intentionally green-screened. That said, Jackson does have a great eye for special effects and the film still demonstrates high quality effects. Flames, goblins, orcs, and spiders are all vividly good looking. Perhaps because we have nothing in real life to compare them to, but they look fantastic none-the-less. **** 

"Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten"
2007
Not Rated
Produced by: Anna Campeau, Amanda Temple, Alan Moloney
Directed by: Julien Temple
Starring: Brigitte Bardot, Bono, Steve Buscemi
Parallel Film Productions

Interesting
Consensus: "I want it to just say; Joe Strummer punk rock warlord" With those lines I must say Joe Strummer is an icon and legendary. Anyone who is interested in the history of punk rock and would like to get more in touch with their roots would do well to watch this intense and well directed documentary. Although it would have been nice to see other things included in the documentary, The Future is Unwritten remained both interesting and informative.

Plot: A celebration of the legendary punk rock icon, Joe Strummer, this film documents the life of the musician, from birth to death.

Directing: Its a documentary, so naturally characters are raw and just whoever they are (in front of a camera) but the people interviewed about the great Joe Strummer's life were in great taste. They made sense and I never thought to myself "why do we care what this moron thinks?" with the exception of Johnny Depp who was just there, randomly, and outside of possibly being a fan and a celebrity (and a great actor) he doesn't really have much to do with Strummer. He's not an expert or anything, just a celebrity, yet at the same time... I woulda included an interview with Depp as well, and it hardly takes tons of screen time ya know? I would have also liked to see more about Joe's crusade against drugs, and had more explanation of the bonfires all the celebrities and friends of Joe were interviewed out, i.e. was that a regular thing or a commemoration thing they did that year or just for the documentary or... I dunno. Overall it was alright directing, especially considering the amount of material they had to cover.

Acting: N/A, this is a documentary.

Editing: This was actually exceptionally done, the use of cartoons like Animal Farm(1954) the display of Joe's art, original films Joe did the music for, original interviews and concerts etc. were all  incorporated well.

Art Direction: N/A

Cinematography: I suppose the interviews are well shot... N/A

Screenplay: N/A hearing Joe Strummer tell a news reporter off was especially scathing and satisfying. Good ol' punk rock.

CGI/Special Effects: N.../...A 

Dustin Kensrue
"This Good Night Is Still Everywhere"
2008
Vagrant Records

4.45/5 Stars
Consensus: Dustin Kensrue remains one of the strongest artists in the industry. His Christmas release is no exception, with powerful and moving covers and two originals, the album has few weak spots if any. One of the best Christmas albums you could listen to and an instant classic in my book.

1)Christmas (Baby Please Come Home): Dustin Kensrue(lead singer of Thrice) starts his solo Christmas album out with this catchy nostalgic cover. As a singer, Dustin Kensrue has one of the most appealing and wonderfully gravely voices out there, he puts it to good use in this cover (he puts it too good use in everything he does frankly...) where he sounds especially warm and unconditionally soulful. The cover includes a super tasteful use of organ, and feels comfortable and warm on all accounts. That said it is a cover so I'd feel uncomfortable giving it the full 5 stars it would otherwise get (originality being a big part of musicianship in my book) it is however a Christmas album and Dustin is hardly expected to write an entire album of Christmas music no one is familiar with. Especially considering how nostalgic the world is about Christmas music, generally. ****1/2

2)Christmas Blues: Another wonderful cover here, where again, Dustin's soulful voice is brought out in the best way possible. Considering the slow and deeply folk roots of the song Dustin does it more than justice, he owns the song as if it was his own. With gorgeous use of harmonica and deep beautiful vocalization this cover is both intriguing and endearing. It carries with it a soul piercing sadness that is accomplished wonderfully. *****

3)Blue Christmas: This is the most well-known song on the album thus far and Dustin again gives it more than justice, he owns the classic song and ads some swing to the previously low-key album. The guitar is smooth and sounds great, especially during gorgeous solos that reminisce of classic rock n' roll style with blues. Its not just a fair cover its a gorgeous cover. ****1/2

4)Fairytale of New York: I feel ignorant but had never heard the original of this song, so for me it was entirely new. But it is indeed a cover (of a "Pogues" song) and Dustin does a great job singing it. It starts off a bit slow, but as the song progresses it gets more and more enthralling and catchy. There are also points in the song where Dustin seems strained and appears to struggle to hit notes. These parts are brief and the song still comes together well. ****

5)This Good Night Is Still Everywhere: Possibly the least catchy on the album, its an original song and a well done folk tune, but isn't quite as good as the previous songs on the album (or any of Dustin Kensrue's originals for that matter). The lyrics paint a very pretty and vivid picture of Christmas, but the song ultimately drags and is probably my least favorite on the album. ***1/2

6)Hark The Herald Angels Sing: This cover of the classic French carol shouldn't have been done. Its very dull and too high for Dustin, he sounds strained, and does nothing but to remind you of far better covers of the carol. Or make you want to go caroling yourself, in a lower key, and with less power chords. It feels very "filler" like someone was like "dang! we've got to have 10 songs on this album, we need 1 more! Quick Dustin! What's your favorite carol not on here?" and he was like "Dang! Hark The Herald Angels is great! I throw some power chords together and record it real quick!" and.. so it was that the low point of this great album was put on. Its still Dustin Kensrue so its hardly the worst thing in the world, its fair, just the low point. ***

7)O Come, O Come Emmanuel: The low point on the album is quickly evened out by the high point. The deeply spiritual sounding and gorgeous rendition of this less known Christmas hymn is...breath-taking? Tear wrenching? All things good and holy? You can feel Dustin's religious convictions through both lyric and the feeling behind them. The entire feeling of Christmas is embalmed in this priceless cover and is by far a high point on the album. *****

8)God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen: The high of the previous song is carried on wonderfully by a phenomenal cover of this well known carol. There is a nice build up to it and layer after layer of instrument add to the theatrical and classic rendition of one of the all time best Christmas carols. *****

9)O Holy Night: The song follows suit of the rest of the album. Its nice, slow, and sounds remarkably full for being just guitar (with effects) and vocals. Its a powerful cover and the last one on the album, its an appropriate end to the covers we hear and again reflects the deep spiritualism from the rest of the CD and feels very full for how little is actually going on. *****

10)This Is War: This original song is incredibly powerful and well done. It could stand on its own on a non-Christmas album, or in a church hymnal, or executed by Dustin's main project Thrice. All would be wholly suiting. It is hard to express the deep love I have for this powerful song, its again, deeply spiritual and sung with such conviction it could stand alone as hymn, or single, or both. The lyrics are worth taking to heart.
This is war like you ain't seen.
This winter's long, it's cold and mean.
We hang dark hearts we stood condemned,
But the tide turns now at Bethlehem.


This is war and born tonight,
The Word as flesh, the Lord of Light,
The Son of God, the low-born king;
Who demons fear, of whom angels sing.

This is war on sin and death;
The dark will take it's final breath.
It shakes the earth, confounds all plans;
The mystery of God as man.
*****

"Fight Club"
1999
R
Produced by: Art Linson, Cean Chaffin, Ross Grayson Bell
Directed by: David Fincher
Written by: Jim Uhls
Starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter
Fox 2000 Pictures

5/5 Stars 
Consensus:Gritty and relentless, Fight Club is a film that sticks and is one of the most enthralling and mesmerizing films ever made. The plot has been mimicked again and again, but never to such high quality, and the philosophical ideas you pick up and think about, whether you agree with them or not, are well worth the watch. A classic film with a cult following, Fight Club is in your face, and not about to go anywhere anytime soon. This movie rules.

Plot: After months without sleep a local insomniac, known only to us as "Narrator"(Edward Norton) befriends soap sales man "Tyler Durden"(Brad Pitt) who's paradigm and behaviors differ so drastically from his own he is immediately captivated by this rugged individual, and becomes involved in underground fighting rings the two begin outside a local bar.

Directing: From dry and witty cynisism delivered flawlessly by Norton, to sadistic punches and hits, David Fincher directs this classic journey of self discovery while capturing every inch of the wild world of Tyler Durden flawlessly. From Narrator's relationship with "Marla Singer"(Carter) and many other subtle hints, this film manages to be a cynical expose of societies quirks and shortcomings, often uncomfortably so. Between scathing philosophy to psychotic, and sadistic blows to the face David Fincher has an excellent eye for the point he, and Chuck Palahniuk were/are trying to make with this film. Agree with it or don't, they do a great job at driving anarchist and anti-consumerism messages home, again and again with every flab of fist and act of domestic terrorism contained within the film. *****

Acting: Pitt and Norton give the performance of a life time, playing off each other and the other actors brilliantly. Norton's transformation from working corporate pawn, to enlightened brawler, to psycho with a gun, are career marking and fantastically enjoyable. Pitt hits a career high as anarchist and sadist Tyler Durden, and completely fades into his role, from sadistic and maniacal laughs, to rants and raves about masculinity and the philosophy of fighting he is flawless. Carter is enjoyable to, and you can tell what a blast she has playing the local crazy girl. *****

Editing: The editing is fantastic, fade cuts, clips of "Tyler Durden" inserted before the character shows up, the pacing and everything are spotless. If one were studying good use of editing, this film is among the finest examples of editing in any film, its brilliant and captures and portrays a mood so thoroughly and noticeably within the film that the entire aura of the film is bolstered. This is hard to accomplish generally, and Fight Club does so fantastically. *****

Art Direction: From neatly combed corporate gardens and offices to the gritty residence of Tyler Durden the art direction is also spotless. What is especially notable is Norton's slow but sure transformation, from neat buisness clothes to running around major cities in boxer shorts, a jacket, and dress shoes. The fancy hotels, the gritty underground of the bar the club starts at, everything is spectacular. *****

Cinematography: Gorgeous takes and classic framing and symmetry, as well as discoloration and distortion, echo the film's war with the normal, and the entire vib of the film splendidly. In particular the scene wherein Tyler Durden and Narrator first fight is gorgeously framed and has a classic use of symmetry. Other close ups of Durden ranting and shots of Project Mayhem recruits crowding the rotting house where Durden and Narrator live are also gorgeous. *****

Screenplay: Both quotable and memorable, the screenplay takes us through such a memorable journey of action and mayhem, all narrated with witty dry sarcasm. As the plot progresses the language gets harsher, the violence grittier and the scheme thicker. Between the opening scene and line of "with a gun between your teeth you speak only in vowels" to the closing sequence of destruction and mayhem whilst Norton and Carter  hold hands the The Pixies "Where is My Mind?" the screenplay, dialogue, and plot are among the most intriguing and engaging to be found. *****

CGI/Special Effects: There is an extremely animated and fake looking penguin, but I feel like it is intentionally fake and animated looking as part of the satire of the film. The explosions rule, and all the other speical effects are pummeled in faces and.. soap. So although the penguin looks crappy, I feel like it was intentionally done so, and thus... ***** 

"The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"
2001
PG-13
Produced by: Peter Jackson, Tim Sanders, Barrie M. Osborne, Fran Walsh
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Written by: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Starring: Alan Howard, Elijah Wood, Noah Appleby
New Line Cinema

5/5 Stars
Consensus: A film that continues to blow my mind every time I watch it. After several viewings you just don't get sick of it, at all, with one of the most enthralling plots, some of the most lovable characters, and the best film work of all time, The Lord Of the Rings is a series and classic that will go down as one of the great films of our time.

Plot: Set in Middle Earth and first of a 3 part epic based around a legendary ring of power. Young "Frodo Baggins"(Elijah Wood) comes into possession of this ring after his uncle, "Bilbo Baggins"(Ian Holm), leaves it to him. Frodo soon comes to learn of the ring's great power, and of the dangers that surround possessing it. He comes to the conclusion to destroy it and sets out with 8 other companions on his quest.

Directing: This is a prime example of good directing, Jackson has an eye for absolutely everything. His directing is spot on in every aspect. Even Aerosmith's daughter(Liv Tyler) looks good and convincing. They filmed all three movies at once so there is a wonderful congruencey and unity in all films that comes from both good directing and spending lots (years) of time to make a high quality film. Jackson spared no expense and had everything done exactly the way it needed to be. Wonderful. *****

Acting: Every single actor within the film melts into their role, owns their character, and creates a vivid and lovable world not soon forgotten. With talents such a Vigro Mortenson, Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Orlando Bloom, and Christopher Lee you can hardly go wrong, and you don't in this epic fantasy tale. The Lord Of the Rings trilogy would go on to jumpstart the careers of names like Orlando Bloom, and Andy Serkis. The acting is outstanding. *****

Editing: Also wonderful, the composition and shots so well thought out and plotted to please both fans of the original books who know an extensive amount about middle earth and the surrounding universe, as well as newcomers who know little or nothing. Every shot is selectively and masterfully composed and linked together. Especially considering the extensive hours of footage to choose from, the editing in film is the best. Both extended and theatrical additions are wonderful and gripping. *****

Art Direction: This is sublime for the Shire alone. The ability to fabricate an entire universe strictly for our imaginations in the breath-taking New Zealand landscape it was shot in is, well... lets just say the art direction must be seen to be believed, its outstanding. From dwarves, to elves, to men, and hobbits, wizards, orcs, and middle earth as an in general the film is loaded with aesthetic appeal and near perfect re-creation of fantasy worlds. The research and eye for detail in these films is flooring. *****

Cinematography: Breathtaking shots of middle earth so epic my retinas will never be the same caress this film with the gorgeous exterior it needs to be the flawless gem it is. Fight sequences are nice and clear, and shot after shot is composed so gorgeously you desperately wish the world you're viewing was real. *****

Screenplay: Witty dialogue, to epic wizard duels, a plot ever thickened by an evil ring of power, the demented, the war-torn, romance,to the elegance of elves are all perfectly captured in the screenplay. Its genius. There are no short comings to it. "One does not simply walk into Mordor". *****

CGI/Special Effects: Especially for 10 years ago, the special effects in this film are eye-popping. Even by today's extreme high def standards the special effects are fantastically envisioned and executed. Here is a film I love that relies heavily on CGI, and pulls everything together wonderfully. Simply gorgeous. *****

"The Hunger Games"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Nina Jacobson, Jon Kilik
Directed by: Gary Ross
Written by: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins
Starring: Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Jennifer Lawrence
Lionsgate

3.92/5 Stars
Consensus: Among the best of the recent "teen-fiction-to-film" genre The Hunger Games is both gripping and intense and provided many thought provoking ideas. Well worth the watch and filled with cool moments, its short comings are very over-lookable and the film is both endearing, gripping and intense overall.

Plot: In the not distant future, and after a horrific war, each conquered districts of a tyrannical nation must offer up two "tributes" for a nationally broadcast "Hunger Games." These tributes are 2 children between the ages of 12-18 that must fight to the death in an arena. In an effort to save her sister heroine "Katniss Everdeen"(Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers in the death match and uses her wits and marksmanship skills to survive both the match and the politics that surround it.

Directing: The entire film had a sense of gritty terror well incorporated throughout it. I've never read the books (I hear tons of complaints from fans of the books) so I'm blissfully unaware of "inaccuracy" shortcomings the film may or may not have. The film has solid directing throughout and does a wonderful job at maintaining a harsh sense of dread and intensity necessary for a film with such a plot line. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta Mellark(Josh Hutcherson) seemed underdeveloped and sudden, although it should be understood that Katniss had ulterior motives for developing a relationship with Peeta at such a rapid rate, more of their back story could have been focused on. Overall Gary Ross did a solid job at directing the film by keeping our adrenaline levels high. ****

Acting: Here the film suffers a bit more as some actors feel extremely forced or generic in their roles. Especially the other tributes in the film and most specifically Josh Hutcherson. The acting isn't totally horrendous on all accounts however, Jennifer Lawrence in particular was both convincing and appealing in her role. In fact many of the actors did a splendid job at maintaining a quite terror about their persona as the plot thickened. Again Jennifer Lawrence is a prime example of this and reflects her character in a way that it is easy for audience to connect with what she is thinking and feeling within the story, she generate pathos and builds the intensity of the plot seamlessly  Josh Hutcherson, on the other hand, appears to be going through the motions and looking pretty, he isn't unbearable but he could be happily replaced with far better actors. ***1/2

Editing: This was one of the best elements of this film, the intense closely shot footage was seamed together quickly and violently, giving both mood and attention to the main plot of the film. Especially for what one would expect with another "popular-teen-book-gone-big-screen" film, wherein one usually finds generic and "invisible" editing, which gives an un-relatable and cookie-cutter feel to the film, The Hunger Games is far more interesting. The rapid and intense use of editing was such a breath of fresh air and made this film stand out in a very good way. *****

Art Direction: Between the decadent poor of Districts 11 and 12 to the outrageous and flarish fashions of those in the Capitol, the art direction in this film was again suprising and extremely well done. The juxtaposition of the extreme poverty and outlandish styles of rich Capitol dwellers gorging themselves on the cruel extermination of children was brilliantly executed. It created a world that truly came alive and was fascinating to see. This and the editing were the best aspects of this film. *****

Cinematography: The footage is well shot and reflects the despair and intensity found in the rest of the film. Although the cinematography seems to lose its quality as the film goes on, the shooting is still well done. Again the beginning of the film, in the scenes shot in District 12, the cinematography is much better done than the rest of the film, but the rest of the film is passable as well. ****

Screenplay: Although passable, the screenplay never found the fluency one would hope for from a film like this. It got along fine but only had a couple good moments, the dialogue was chunky at times and it seemed as if there were parts that were not well thought out in the transition from book to screen. Indeed I've read and heard many a complaint about the screenplay's lack of faith to the original novel, I will again state I have never read the books and cannot claim infringement in this aspect. That said the author of the original novel helped with the screenplay so this may serve as some recompense to parties wishing to lament about disloyalty in this aspect. Beside what I'm ignorant of  the screenplay was mediocre, but had one of the most intense and gripping plot lines I have seen in a film. For that reason I say the screenplay is good, even if the dialogue isn't up to Tarantino standard. ****

CGI/Special Effects: In this aspect the film suffered the most as the CGI was both cartoonish and painfully obvious. Although we must take for granted that many CGI moments within film will look obvious, these animated creatures looked so sloppily green screened it was painful and left a lot to be wanted in both realism and intensity due to the obvious fabricated nature of the creatures. An unfortunate direction in an otherwise great film. Not that I care to much, the plot is great. **

"Star Wars IV: A New Hope"
1977
PG
Produced by: Rick McCallum, Gary Kurtz
Directed by: George Lucas
Written by: George Lucas
Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher
Lucasfilm

4.78/5 stars
Consensus:One of the most historic and classic films of all time, Star Wars redefined what a sci-fi movie could be. It is rare for a film to have such cultural impact and of all the major films that have had such impact, Star Wars IV: A New Hope is certainly king. It redefined science fiction, created an entire universe that spawned a seemingly endless franchise of books, video games, trivia, action figures, and just about anything else imaginable. Its sole and only short coming is Lucas' sloppy directing. If you haven't seen it you've been living under a rock your entire life and are an uncultured slob.

Plot: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away there is an intergalactic rebellion against an evil Empire. "Luke Skywalker"(Mark Hamill) is a moisture farmer on desert planet "Tatooine" when he meets "Ben Obi-wan Kenobi"(Alec Guinness) and becomes hopelessly involved in the galactic struggle for freedom.

Directing: George Lucas is one of the great story tellers of our time. He has a brilliant imagination that is both in depth and intriguing, heck he created an entire universe so popular and well-known it changed the face of sci-fi forever. That man is a genius, I think he is brilliant. Now that we have that out of the way, we can also establish that all his imagination and brilliance go to story telling and ideas, and he knows it. George Lucas is not a director. The two Star Wars films he did not direct are the best in taste and directing, this film, although not the most terrible in directing, is certainly the weakest out of the classic trilogy. Its far more plot driven and the actors aren't directed very well, just well enough to get by. Roast me, but Lucas is not a good director, just passable. The characters could be far more developed in their relationships with each other, yet at the same time this is one of the most important films in film history and Lucas does do an essentially good job. Its an ongoing internal debate I often have with myself when contemplating the Star Wars saga. Lucas for the win or fail? So we'll give him a neutrally toned rating here since I feel the subject can be argued either way (I argue the subject with myself regularly) but ultimately must conclude that the directing is par at best, sub-par at worst. ***1/2

Acting: Harrison Ford is in his best role, Mark Hamill is whiny and Alec Guinness is always the best. The actors made this movie as appealing and fun as it is, they are all perfect and classic in their roles, most notably Harrison Ford really steals the show as Han Solo. He broke out into the acting world with this role (he was a carpenter and set designer and tried out for the role just for fun, expecting it to not really lead to anything or go anywhere) and defined a classic character that has been parodied and noticed for years. Mark Hamill was so definitive in his role as Luke Skywalker that he found it nearly impossible to get any other role outside of voice acting. It was a career defining moment for the actors, and a well deserved one seeing as they managed to pull off such stellar performances with such poor directing. *****

Editing: When it comes to this film, the older of a version you can get the better. In later editions of the film Lucas has gone back and added awful CGI bits intended for... I don't know.. the 10 year olds of the world, these parts are horrible and unfunny and take away quite a bit from the classic film. Fortunately the version being reviewed here is a 1995 classic VHS version (I feel like someone would make a killing off of people like me and like minded individuals that prefer the classic version if they were to take such a version and convert it to DVD) with all the original cuts. Which are fantastic and priceless. Oh Lucas, learn so now, often your first idea was your best one, and so it is with your beloved series. The original editing and composition of this film create such a classic odyessy through space that it really is one of the best editing jobs, especially considering the relatively low budget of the film overall and the amount of necessary cuts needed to be put in to cover up less than desirable footage. *****

Art Direction: The masterminds behind this film created a universe familiar to us and thousands of people. The costuming and set design would grow to become models for countless video games, board games, tribute films, cartoons, and all other sorts of Star Wars paraphernalia (action figures, LEGO sets, posters, you name it!). Again this was done on a relatively low budget for a film that no one was sure would be very successful, and they pulled it off, perfectly recreating the vivid world envisioned by Lucas and bringing it to life to become a timeless classic. *****

Cinematography: One of the cleanest shot films ever made. Even compared to modern HD/Blu-ray standards and other hi-def films, the original film looks and feels stunningly clear and well shot. This historic film looks as great as it's plot and universe. *****

Screenplay: "Where did you dig up that old fossil?"
"I find your lack of faith...disturbing.."
"The force will be with you, always"
"May the force be with you"
"Will someone get this walking carpet out of my way?"
"Stay on target!"
Clearly one of the most quotable and classic screen plays of all time. 'Nuff said. *****

CGI/Special Effects: This film pioneered the way for special effects. Especially considering the time period the special effects in this film are sublime. Every space explosion, laser beam, light-saber is SO COOL LOOKING. And again it trail-blazed the way for countless, and I mean COUNTLESS other films, especially sci-fi films. Please, if you're going to use CGI follow Lucas' example in the Star Wars series. *****

"007: Skyfall"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Barbara Broccoli
Directed by: Sam Mendes
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem
Metro-Golden-Mayer (MGM)

3.43/5 Stars
Consensus: Skyfall is a good addition to the Bond legacy. Its entertaining and slick, but offers nothing deeper or more interesting than that.

Plot: MI6 sends agent "007"(Daniel Craig) out on a mission to protect a stolen hard drive containing a list of British agents. He fails, and soon a plot to eradicate "M"(Judi Dench) is unfolded and Bond(007) must use all his skills and abilities to protect his overseer.

Directing: The directing was mediocore at least. Nothing too outstanding but nothing sub-par. Then again we are dealing with the ultimate "B-gone-A" franchise of all time, so there isn't exactly a lot to hope or look for, nor were there many creative oppurtunities for Sam Mendes. So he did a comendable job in a situation with little wiggle room, the actors knew their parts and executed them well. There could have been more character build up and intimacy between characters as well. Everyone felt like they were just doing there job, not like they had actual relationships with each other, perhaps because everyone is supposed to be top secret agent with brilliant ideas and all that espionage, but it seems like there could have been more depth to the film overall and its always disappointing to see a film fall short of its potential. ***

Acting: Everyone seemed familiar, if not generic, in their roles. Although the acting was by no means poor, it wasn't outstanding either. It was interesting to see Bond portrayed as an "out-of date-war-torn-vet" rather than the "new-hot-best-of-his-kind" role we're all familiar with. Daniel Craig, therefore, requires some attention in this film for his thoughtful portrayal of a veteran on the outs. Its certainly not Oscar gold, but its passable and in good taste. ****

Editing: The editing in the film was actually well done. The action shooting was smooth and logical, the pacing was worthy of a "Bond" film and everything flowed logically. Again, nothing especially stood out and it seemed to be just industry standard editing for a likable action film. ***1/2

Art Direction: It seemed modern and very sleek espionage-esq. The island that Bond's nemesis, "Silva"(Javier Bardem) is found on is especially good in this aspect. They captured the panic and desolation of an abandoned community well, especially a community left in chaos due to an international secret agent. MI6 was also well invisioned along with all the cool gadgets and whats its that are consistent with any Bond film. ****

Cinematography: Of all aspects of this movie, the quality cinematography was my favorite. This film has several choice shots, especially during the finale at Bond's homestead, "Skyfall" in Ireland, there are several great looking shots and wonderful use of scenery for framing. The cinematography, like the rest of the stylish film, looked great and was extremely well done. Whether it be moving shots following Bond through a casino or close-ups of 007 being interrogated by nemesis Silva, the cinematography in this film was tight and looked great. ****1/2

Screenplay: The main suffering point of this film was the screenplay. In a series as extensive as the Bond series it depended to heavily on past films many may be unfamiliar with. The closeness between characters seemed superficial and forced and many lines seemed obvious. There was a level of intellect to the screenplay and one appealing aspect was the (and I use this term liberally, it is a Bond film) realism used within the film. Bond is without outlandish gadgets and outrageous technology. There is, naturally, loads and loads of unrealistic circumstances (surviving a sniper shot off a moving train after getting pulverized and then falling hundreds of feet free fall into a river and living to not only tell about it, but go on to contend with some of the most serious and athletic counter agents in the world counts, in my book, as outlandish and unbelievable) but for the most part it seemed as if the writers were trying to take Bond to a more reachable realistic world. Bond's smooth lines with the ladies also seemed painfully absent or forced. The screenplay
was sub-par in this film, when it could have been far more intense, and intelligent it just never seemed to reach its potential or depth, the characters one dimensional and obvious, the plot fairly predictable, but the action and gadgets good.  **1/2

CGI/Special Effects: Here we have a film that relies heavily on fast action, attractive scantly-clad women, CGI and explosions. The action was cool, the explosions were ok and the CGI was awful. Especially the creature CGI, one would think you were playing a video game rather than watching a film with the kamodo dragons in the film. They did not look remotely real, and this was a common theme throughout the film. Again there was some slick and entertaining action, and there were some really cool explosions, but there were also some that looked so painfully animated and computer generated that is was distracting. It just goes to prove that a computer program, even if really cool and good, is no replacement for real life stunt work and pyrotechnics. **1/2

"The King's Speech"
2010
R
Produced by: Iain Canning, Gareth Unwin, Emile Sherman
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Written by: David Seidler
Starring: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Derek Jacobi
The Weinstein Company

5/5 Stars
Consensus: Smart, intriguing, pretty, and stylish, The King's Speech tells a great story that is both hopeful and intriguing. The acting, directing, and cinematography are especially high quality. This film is very recommendable and totally worthy of the 2010 Oscar attention it received.

Plot: Its pre-war England and King George V(Micheal Gambon) is ill. His second son, King George VI(Colin Firth) is set to take the throne, except he has one major reservation. He stutters and has no talent for public speaking. This is the story of his quick ascension to the throne and of Lionel Logue(Geoffrey Rush), the man who helped the king speak.

Directing: Tom Hooper shows his talent in his freshman film and is completely worthy of the Oscar he received for the film. The directing is smart and to the point, you can tell how well thought out the characters and general feel of the film are. *****

Acting: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, and Geoffrey Rush are all well known, and prestigious actors. They do an outstanding job in this film and all show their range. The characters are well thought out and come to life through the actors. Colin Firth in particular gives a career performance as King George VI. He creates both pathos for his character as well as developing a speech pattern and persona that are unmistakable and impressive. The acting is all very A-list and deserves all the nominations and notice that it has received.  *****

Editing: Another well done piece in this well done film. The editing is on par with both acting and directing. I especially liked a montage wherein the King and Lionel are doing speech therapy together and going through different speech therapy techniques and so forth. The editing in this sequence was creative and aesthetically appealing, the use of fades with camera shots made for smooth and flawless transitions over time, coupled with sound editing this was a wonderfully edited montage and film overall. *****

Art Direction: Again spot on. Everything looked and felt like pre-war England and had an extremely nostalgic feel to it. The recreation of Westminster Abbey, the royal palace, and Lionel's room all felt very realistic and authentic. The costuming was also high quality, person's looked like royalty in exquisitely designed dresses and suits. Overall this film looked and felt like any good time-period piece should. The art direction was superb. *****

Cinematography: The camera shots were all very beautiful, the use of cinematography with good editing made for outstanding camera work. I would refer again to the montage mentioned in the Editing section of this review, wherein there were many good camera shots. One excellent use of symmetry occurred as Lionel and King George VI faced each other and practiced speech techniques, tongue twisters etc. The camera gradually focused on a couch within Lionel's room and slowly came back, meanwhile the timing and dialogue of what was happening changed. I loved it on both an editing and cinematographic standpoint. *****

Screenplay: As a film about speech you would expect the dialogue and screenplay to be especially good, and The King Speech lives up to this expectation. The film had a very smooth and thoughtful pace and dialogue. The natural flow of the film and the characters interactions therein must be attributed to a quality screen play. *****

CGI/Special Effects: Not many explosions or CGI existed in the film of any note. Which is a good thing. The more a film can depend on a good solid plot and great acting, the higher quality film you're going to get. Not that CGI or special effects and explosions etc. constitute a low quality film, just that many less quality films endeavor to cover their foul stench with flashy CGI and an amplitutde of explosions. *****

"Grand Hotel"
1932
Not Rated
Produced by: Irving Thalberg, Paul Bern
Directed by: Edmund Goulding
Written by: Vicki Baum
Starring: Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford
Metro-Golden-Mayer(MGM)


5/5 Stars
Consensus: Although it is very possible to go wrong with the classics, this is a case where one would go very right in viewing this classic, and historical film. It was key in the development of art direction, and has one of the most genius plots one could hope to develop, and all done without the use of computer-generated anything.


Plot:We follow several guests at Berlin's "Grand Hotel". Each has different motives for staying at the hotel and they all become fatefully intertwined.

Directing: The relationships and subtle development of plots and subplots within the film is genius. The film has a way of developing and intertwining little things relative to the characters. Considering the strict censorship in place at the time the film was developed and the frankly adult themes of the plot, the directing is especially appealing for the tactful and smart way the audience is told and implied details from character's lives without being shown or anything explicit being demonstrated. *****

Acting: John and Lionel Barrymore co-star in this classic film, and they have fantastic chemistry together. They look and appear on film wonderfully together. The rest of the cast has their roles down to an art. Perhaps the most appealing of many classic films is the high quality actors held themselves to, it seems to be an art that has changed, whether for better or worse is debatable and not the intention of this entry, but a glimpse back at stereotypes and talents of the past is always refreshing. This film shows all spectrum of human emotion, from gritty illicit affairs, murder, the horrors of a women purchased into something a-moral, to the joy of romance, the glee of having money to spend on luxury and being in good company. The actors in the film not only are comfortable and disappear into their roles, they demonstrate a great range of emotion from humor to grief. *****

Editing: Again, the brilliant way in which the adult subject matter was handled and edited so as the audience understood perfectly what was happening without being shown anything graphic is both commendable and genius. The way our attention turned from character to character by using objects within the hotel (such as a revolving door, or an elevator) was also an absolute epiphany on part of the editor. The very end especially has such incredible and flawless use of editing so as to keep the audience anxious and completely drawn in. Coupled with sub-plots flawlessly incorporated this film is a ideal specimen of editing for those wishing to see how its done from the originals.  *****

Art Direction: I saw the film on TCM specifically for its achievement in art direction. There was loads of commentary on the art direction of the film, and its significance in film history specifically for its contribution to art direction. That said the art direction is just plain crap.
Just kidding, its brilliant, but with that introduction I thought I'd keep you on your feet! Ha!
The entire film is shot within the "Grand Hotel" the film is based at, with a couple shots of the front of the hotel as the exception, the interior and circular design of the sets reflects perfectly the mood and relationship of all of the characters within the film. The revolving door, elevators, staircases, reception desk, all tie into the plot perfectly. *****

Cinematography: Especially for its use in suspenseful and otherwise risque moments, the cinematography in this film is wonderful. Its interesting to see the excessive amount of tobacco smoking filling up so many of the shots, something that would be considered sloppy today, regardless of sociatal distaste for smoking generally. I found it very funny and loved the trip back to the golden age of Hollywood. *****

Screenplay: Once again, the smart and insightful way subjects like adultery and murder were handled in this film is incredible. The dialogue is smart and witty, the character development is thorough and loaded with pathos. Each arch-type is so well written the cast feels like familiar friends and enemies of whom you're watching a home video. The incredible way these seemingly unrelated characters are introduced, developed, and related to one another is a rare thing, and one that is greatly appreciated. *****

CGI/Special Effects: This film is blessedly void of explosions, gore, CGI animals and critters, or train wrecks. I love it. I wish they'd make more like it. The stunt work that did exist was excellent, costuming was great, this movie rules. *****

"Puss In Boots"
2011
PG
Produced by: Latifa Ouaou, Joe M. Aguilar
Directed by: Chris Miller
Written by: Charles Perrault
Starring: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis
Dreamworks Animation


3.64/5 Stars
Consensus:Cute and funny, but not life changing, Puss In Boots is a great family friendly movie with an appealing plot. Worth the watch, but maybe not to own. The characters are overall endearing and the film well directed, just not mind boggling. Good, not spectacular or amazing.


Plot: Puss In Boots  is intended to be a predecessor to the film Shrek 2(2004) and follows the early endeavors of the title character, "Puss In Boots"(Antonio Banderas), who is a wanted outlaw in mythical Spain. Upon hearing about a recovered set of magic beans, Puss sets out to recover said beans and thus capitalize on the treasure stored in the giant's castle at the end of the bean stock. Before he can do this he is interfered with by fellow cat burglar "Kitty Softpaws"(Salma Hayek) and former best friend/criminal mastermind "Humpty Alexander Dumpty"(Zach Galifiankis).

Directing: Chris Miller does a decent job at this and has the cute cynical aura the first 2 Shrek films had down well. Albeit low brow at times, the humor is overall very witty and refers often and funnily to cat mannerisms and familiar sterotypes built on in the previous Shrek films. The obvious aim of the film is towards children so some of the less witty/silly physical humor is geared towards them, although it does not go unappreciated for what it is. Chris Miller competently directs and does well for his genre. ****

Acting: Its difficult for me to give a decent review on voice acting in animated films. That said, and just going off what I heard, I felt like Humpty Dumpty was really annoying the entire film. I don't Galifianakis did a great job and just seemed whiny the entire film. Now whether or not that was intentional is very debatable, it very well could be, but the voice acting just didn't flip my cookies. Banderas was appealing in his role, Hayek seemed bored in hers and Billy Bob Thorton(Jack) and Amy Sedaris(Jill) were fantastic in their roles! The rough redneck rendition of an outlaw Jack and Jill was extremely well casted, and in very good humor. ***1/2

Editing:They had a lot of multiple pane shots on the same screen, like a comic book or split screening. Usually I'm not a big fan of this but overall it worked good in the film, especially to build momentum within the plot, and as an element for humor. ****

Art Direction: The film is supposed to be set in Spain, in San Ricardo. Now I've never been to Spain so I can't tell you much about the landscaping, but it looked a heck of a lot more like Mexico or Central America. It would have been a lot better, if set in the American Southwest, but then you wouldn't have all the European fairytale characters running around. Catch 22. So take a few Joshua Trees out with your imagination and don't think about it too much and you'll be just fine, the fairy tale world still feels the same as did Shrek's which had similar elements, i.e. Far Far Away modeled after a Hollywood/West LA area etc. So on the one hand I'm impressed by the consistency of the fairy tale world, the cute tie ins to western action/adventure and the nice blend between European cities and cat bars and deep west deserts and high speed chases, a part of me also disapproves. I suppose its a small detail to fidget about too much, and its still a very cute and consistent film, but the fact remains, so I have to mark this one down a bit for lack of research. ***1/2

Cinematography: This is also an unusual category when it comes to animated film since the camera work is very different and is... computer generated. That said, the shots were smartly and artistically composed, easy to look at, and had several cool shots within the film. ****

Screenplay: I hate hate hated the cat dance fight scene. It was obnoxious and in poor taste. Random, irrelevant, silly, and unappealing. That was the most annoying part. The best part was all the subtle inclusions of cat behavior that any pet owner could relate to. The cute references and Spanglish blends were also in extremely good taste. After our main characters are transported above the clouds via magic bean stock they have helium voices, also very funny and logical. Its just that darn dance scene that was so obnoxious that turns me off to the screen play, like seriously, who sat around and was like "oh I know what would be silly that all the little kiddies will like! A very silly dance off between Puss and Kitty Softpaws!! Haha! Then we can add some obvious romantic tension to the limited character development and make people everywhere roll their eyes in dismay!" It didn't work in Spider-man 3(2007) and it doesn't work here. Unless you're part of the Step Up(2006) franchise in which your entire film is dependent on dance offs, please, avoid them and don't put them into your films. It doesn't work. It gets balanced out by the other cute tid-bits but, seriously folks, we never needed to see dancing cats. Ever. Even if there is an earthquake or a fire or a lightening storm.***

CGI/Special Effects: Again following suit of the Shrek franchise we see very comendable animation coming from Dreamworks studios. It looks fresh and cute, just like the other films, but won't take your breath away quite yet. There is at times a bland or mass produced air to it, as if someone just hit copy & paste thoughtlessly in the background and for CGI extras, but its still good looking. ***1/2

Bright Eyes
"A Christmas Album"
2002
Saddle Creek

2.32/5 Stars
Consensus:Bright Eyes is a great band, and went on to release other great albums. This isn't one of their great albums. Although it has one or two songs that are really good everything else you have to sit through is so monotonous and dreary its not worth it. Bright Eyes, as an indie/hipster band, is always gonna stand out one way or another. The whole album feels like they tried SO hard to stand out that they just ended up being irritating, not interesting or creative. Overall this album is awful. I recommend getting the singles on iTunes and sparing the pain of the rest of the album. That said the money from this album goes to a good cause, Nebraska AIDS, so if you do end up buying it, don't beat yourself up.

1)Away In A Manger: The vocalists sound like scared children performing in front of a big crowd for the first time at choir recital. Its pathetic, and irritating. The attempted mumble/sing over the classic carol is just irritating. It gets slightly better around the 2nd verse but random ambient noises in the background disrupt/ruin the experience. Its just annoying. *1/2

2)Blue Christmas: A total contrast to the first song, this sounds like the Bright Eyes I'm used to listening to. This is a fantastic cover of the original song with all the twangy folksy indie twists you'd expect from a group like Bright Eyes. ****

3)Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem: This song is in a key too high for the singer, Conor Oberst. As a result he sounds strained and flat throughout the song. The song does include a nice use of horns which adds a lot, but that is quickly taken away by more strange and unnecessary ambient noises towards the end. **

4)God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen: This rebounds again with a very solid and jazzy sound from the group. It has a lovely inclusion of cello in the song which adds quite a bit to the overall effect. This sounds like the indie/folk cover of a Christmas song one would hope for from a band like Bright Eyes. It has a solid back beat, its not so experimental that it takes away from the original cover, but has a nice flare to it that is distinctly unique. ****

5)The First Noel: This version of the classic carol is drugged out and boring you can hardly recognize it. Its almost as if Bright Eyes is trying SO hard to be SO different and stand outish they lose the taste of what the original song is and all musicianship. They come again with ambient noises in the back ground and mumble singing in a mildly flat and melancholy manner, which is great and all if you're writing you're own moody song about politics or girls or dragons or whatever, but when it comes to Christmas carols, especially ones that are intended to be happy and upbeat... it just doesn't work. For me at least. I did however really like the twangy guitar effects in the back ground so it had some redeeming value. **

6)The Little Drummer Boy: The song starts with light piano and drummers and... distorted singing. Its ok but, again, it doesn't make a lot of sense in context of what they're singing. The song is listenable but not great. Some double time drums thrown in at the end makes the song a lot better for wear. ***

7)White Christmas: The vocals are nice and clear on this one. Its very relaxing and makes for great background music. But its nothing to get super excited for. Short sweet and to the point. ***1/2

8)Silent Night: More frustrating ambient guitar with a bajillion effects on it that remind me of an explosion in a bad b movie. Coupled with moody mumble singing and extra ambient noises at the end make this song miserable and boring. *

9)Silver Bells: The group seems to be leaning more towards traditional caroling in this piece. Group vocals are always pleasing to me and this song comes together nicely. There is a euphoric and appealing edge to the song that makes it worth the listen, even if it does retain some of the odd ambiance of the rest of the album. ***

10)Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas: This song again sounds like a really bad recital you went to for your cousin or niece or nephew, maybe even a younger sibling.You know, the special Christmas one you sat through for them, because you love them, and the whole time you're sitting in your chair wondering whether you should just leave or work up the courage to lie to them about how wonderful they did. You end up lying of course and telling the poor little kid how great they did and how proud of them you are etc etc. But really you wanted to rip your ear drums out and get addicted to tar heroin rather than sit through another stupid minute of the brat's recital. That's how I feel about this song, except I don't have to lie.  Conor Oberst sounds like he is about to pee his pants he's so scared and mumbly. Its so slow my grandpa might start slam dancing. Tons of ambient noises. It just plain sucks. 1/2

11)The Night Before Christmas:This song is extremely boring and consists of a man reading "Twas The Night Before Christmas" by Clement Clarke Moore over a repetitive piano rift. It gets old super fast and ads nothing to the classic poem. Not a stellar way to end an album. *

"The Dark Knight"
2008
PG-13
Produced by: Christopher Nolan, Lorne Orleans, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Johnathon and Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart
Warner Bros. Pictures


5/5 Stars
Consensus: The Dark Knight is hands down the best super hero movie ever made to date. It will be extremely difficult, if at all possible, to top this perfect blend of casting, directing and brilliant screenplay. Seeing it for the previews when it came out for the first time in July of 2008 are among my fondest cinema memories. Seeing it then changed my life and seeing it now makes my life a little better each time.

Plot: Continuing off of the first film, Batman Begins(2005), "Bruce Wayne"(Christian Bale) continues to fight mob crime under the alias "Batman." As tensions with the mob increase, and with the election of new DA, "Harvey Dent"(Aaron Eckhart) Gotham crime families grow uneasy and hire the psychotic "Joker"(Heath Ledger) to help restore them to power.

Directing: Christopher Nolan directs the gritty super hero epic with all the intensity, and density a hero such as "The Dark Knight" needs. You can tell how well he knows his action, his grit, his characters. Due to Nolan's directing this film is one of the most vivid retellings of Batman that has ever been created. *****

Acting: Heath Ledger's "Joker" will, and has, gone down as one of the best played villains in film history. Everybody else does a superb job at what they do. But the Joker is the best part of the film, even to the point that I almost wanted less of everybody else and more of the Joker, like a Joker movie, with Batman as a side character. The villains monologues are among the best in cinema history. "Wanna know how I got these scars?" and "Why so serious?" are so quotable. Classic. And made perfect by Heath Ledger. Contrary to popular belief this was actually his 2nd to last ever film, his last film was The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus(2009). He passed away while the film was still in shooting stage and his role was filled by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Firth. Just a fun fyi. *****

Editing: The sheer pacing of this film is exhilarating  Every minute of it screams Batman. Every minute is intense and on your feet, with a couple moments of quite for you to take it all in. This my friends is how you edit an action flick. Shot by shot and frame by frame we are taken on high speed chase to plot thickening essentials with such flawless precision as one could hope for. *****

Art Direction: Gotham really comes alive and is as gritty and realistic as ever. Nolan and crew have succeeded in creating a world that is believable and virtually tangible. From Bruce Wayne's ever so classy pent-house to the grimy Gotham underground, the art direction is awesome. One of my favorite bits of the film comes during a tunnel chase sequence in which the Joker is shooting at an armored S.W.A.T vehicle. As the Joker pulls up you see the logo for the trucking company he and his henchman have high-jacked. It originally reads "Laughter is the best medicine!" but he or one of his croonies has spray painted an "S" in front of laughter so it now reads "Slaughter is the best medicine!" This is exactly what the Joker would do, or feels like the exact thing he would do if he were real. The psyche of each character is brilliantly reflected in the art direction *****

Cinematography: The Dark Knight was shot on IMAX cameras, or in other words it was intended to be panoramic and big. And it is. From the opening long shot of buildings and skyscrapers to an awesome angling of the Joker with a tommy gun firing into the night and at oncoming traffic while muttering to himself, the cinematography, like the rest of the film, is big and exciting. Oh and its really pretty to look at all the mayhem with such nice framing and angling and shooting etc.  *****

Screenplay: Epic Joker monologues? Check. Intense interrogation scenes? Check. Philosophical insight on idealistic paradigms? Check. Whitty banter between Bruce Wayne and Alfred(Micheal Cane)? Check. Gangsters talking believable slang? Check. My favorite word on this blog? Brilliant. Just like this screenplay. *****

CGI/Special Effects: The explosions were consistently the coolest thing ever. And there were lots and lots of them throughout the film. A scene where a helicopter gets taken down with grappling hooks is also very realistic and cool. All of the graphics follow suit and put a wonderful 5 star cherry on top of this 5 star film! *****

"The Artist"
2011
PG-13
Produced by: Thomas Langmann
Directed by: Michel Hazanavicius
Written by: Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo, John Goodman
Studio 37


5/5 Stars
Consensus:One of the few films I would consider perfect. Flawless performance and directing make this masterpiece an instant classic. The characters as accessible and lovable, the plot clear and consistent, the style unique and brave. Completely deserving of all the praise it has been given and all the awards it has received.

Plot: Silent film star "George Valentin"(Jean Dujardin) is on a career high when "talkies" and a stock-market crash ruin him. Rising star "Peppy Miller"(Berenice Bejo), whom Valentin helped her early career, helps him back onto his feet whilst building romance with the fallen icon.

Directing:I believe silent film directors are among the most talented. Getting someone to deliver a line properly is one thing, having an actor pantomime an entire thought or ideal, successfully... now that takes some talent. Since the film is silent it takes a good deal of talent to express a plot or action compared to a film with audio in which one can simply say "I'm really upset with you" or "I love you", heck, the audio can be off-screen if you feel like it! That's the brilliance of Michel Hazanavicius' (I don't ever even want to try to pronounce that last name in real life) directing. He has managed to orchestrate a beautiful film without many of the elements one would usually depend on. *****

Acting: Pantomime is extremely difficult to pull off without being irritating. The physicality and over-the-top nature of the art is difficult to master and not everyone is good at it. The cast of The Artist however is not everyone and does an outstanding job at pulling this complex art off without a hitch. Jean Dujardin's 2011 Academy Award for best actor is well placed and deserved. The other actors perform splendidly as well. *****

Editing:This was my single favorite part of this film. The editing is outrageously good. Brilliant. Awe striking. One particularly brilliant moment towards the beginning of the film we see a theater full of people watching a "Valentin" film. Cuts between Valentin himself and the audience and the film are incredibly orchestrated with the off screen music and the plot in and of itself. At one point we see a close-up of Valentin and are shown him looking at the back of the movie screen, we then cut to a wide-shot of the audience who is laughing hysterically and applauding, letting us know something brilliant has just happened in the film that Valentin is proud of. The fact that we're never shown what it is is perfect because it helps show that Valentin could be anybody in silent film era Hollywood and the core of such grandeur could be anything. The editing was the best part of this film, and this was a very good film. *****

Art Direction: This film ought to be (and likely is or will be) compared to Singing In The Rain(1952) as it is about the same era in Hollywood, and the same revolutionary crisis many had at the time, namely "talkies" or film with sound. The art direction in this film captured the late 20s early 30s Hollywood to precision. Having seen many old films from that era, this film felt and looked exactly like it had been made 60-70 years ago. The style of clothing, cars, set design, set design of the set designs, everything looked like early 30s Hollywood. Literally, watch a Gene Kelly or James Stewart film next to this one. If you didn't know anything about film and you saw both you wouldn't be able to tell which was filmed now or then. Outstanding. *****

Cinematography: The film has some brilliant framing moments. One scene in particular where Valentin is filming for a "3 Musketeers" type film the camera moves just so, so we see both what the final film will look like, as well as the studio it is being filmed in since that is part of our world and plot as well. The film is filled with many wonderful example like this of great cinematography. *****

Screenplay:The three words said in the film are used perfectly. Again, it is far more difficult to write and direct pantomime than spoken word as you must have every element of the film imagined already. You could tell the screenplay was fluid and well imagined. *****

CGI/Special Effects:The only special effects that come to mind are a fire Valentin is involved with and some lightening or electricity at the beginning of the film. Since the purpose of the film is to be reminiscent of late 20's/early 30's Hollywood, the special effects included looked and felt perfectly like the effects of the late 20's early 30's. Therefore they are perfect for what they are used for. *****

"Something Wicked This Way Comes"
Written by: Ray Bradbury
1962
Avon Books



5/5 stars
Consensus:Something Wicked This Way Comes not only has an enthralling and suspenseful plot, but is also filled with meaningful and insightful thoughts. The prose, character development, and structure of the novel are all superb. The book is one that is disappointing to finish only because you don't have such a marvelous book to look forward to reading tomorrow. The journey is over when you would hope its just beginning. Read it.

Plot:Jim Nightshade and Will Halloway are 13 year old boys in Green Town, Illinois when "Cooger & Dark's Pandemonium Shadow Show" rolls into town. With the carnival comes an unexplained sense of foreboding. Jim and Will investigate and their lives, and the lives of all those who come into contact with carnival are changed forever.


Prose:Ray Bradbury is among the best of the best when it comes to use of words. This book reads beautifully and fluently. Bradbury has a talent to paint with words and make what he is describing become real and vivid and jump off the page. Their is a hint of tragic poetry in every line or verse of the novel and I often found myself stopping to admire the sheer craft of word being used. Ray Bradbury is a genius of literature and proves himself well in this book. Of all the many brilliant pieces from the book, the thoughts and epiphanies of Charles Halloway are among the most valuable. For example: "Evil has only the power that we give it. I give you nothing. I take back. Starve. Starve. Starve." or "Why are some people all grasshopper fiddlings, scrapings, all antennae shivering, one big ganglion eternally knotting, slip-knotting, square knotting themselves? They stoke a furnace all their lives, swear their lips, shine their eyes and start it all in the crib. Caesar's lean and hungry friends. They eat the dark, who only stand and breathe." Both are examples of gorgeous prose found in Something Wicked This Way Comes. *****


Character Development:Bradbury spends an incredible amount of time in the novel exploring the character traits of each individual he's breathed life, into. One can tell how much Bradbury wants his audience to know how human his characters are, their flaws, strengths, shortcomings, how very much like us they are. The novel triumphs at being very humanistic in this aspect. There are 3 main characters; Will Halloway, Jim Nightshade, and Charles Halloway. We feel as if these three are dear friends to use by the end of the novel. Each has a very specific character arch. Through their thoughts and discoveries we explore their antagonists, which is brilliant. Rather than spend lots of time developing the antagonistic by spending time with them , we see them develop as Charles, Will, and Jim slowly discover more about them. They are as deranged and evil as the other three are good-natured and chivalrous. Mr. Dark, the Dust Witch, the Dwarf, the Skeleton. All the freaks in the circus, although given less time, feel and have a depth of life to them hard to accomplish for other author's main characters. One can imagine each of their horrific back stories.  *****

Originality:It could be argued that the novel is as much an essay about the nature of good and evil and the convictions of men and women deciding which they will be, as much as it is a novel about 2 young boys fighting an ancient and evil power disguised as a carnival. It is highly original and brilliant. It follows a typical plot arch but is delightfully original and appealing as it does so. The brilliance and beauty of the novel, as with any good novel, come from the ideas conveyed within the predictability of a familiar plot line. The concept of evil in this form, an ancient daemonic posing as an entertainer, is thought provoking and intriguing. *****

Simplicity:Yet another brilliant aspect of the novel is the simple and relatable nature of its aspects. Everything within the novel is within grasp of the reader. 2 young boys going through puberty, discovering life. An old man watching youth with envy. Dreams and hopes that never were realized. And so forth, one of Bradbury's many talents is to take something as simple as 2 mischievous boys and make them the most beautiful thing anyone has ever heard of. *****

"Hugo"
2011
PG
Produced by: Johnny Depp, Tim Headington, Graham King, Martin Scorsese
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: John Logan
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Asa Butterfield
Paramount Pictures



4.93/5 Stars
Consensus: Hugo is as historically important is it is entertaining and accessible. I will probably see it a billion times in future film classes and I will probably be excited by this prospect each and every time the film is announced. I would love to own this film and would watch it again and again without shame. A near perfect film.

Plot:13-year old "Hugo Cabret"(Asa Butterfiled) is an orphan who lives inside a train station, his job is to wind the station clocks and keep them running. He wants, more than anything, to fix an automaton that he and his late father had been trying to repair, to do this he steals and pillages for bits and pieces of machinery from a local station shop owned by "Georges Melies" (Ben Kingsley). He is one day caught by Melies and his life becomes involved with the great mystery surrounding this man.

Directing: Scorsese has established himself as one of the great auteurs of our time and this film is yet another tribute to his brilliance. Following suite with his previous endeavors Hugo feels like new ground for the director, while staying true to his unique and wonderful style. One piece that was particularly thrilling was the classic "Scorsese long shot" included at the very end of the film. One can always anticipate this shot in a Scorsese film, and although its small, its well worth anticipating.  This unique flare Scorsese has is among my favorite of all the camera work he does. Its inclusion at the finale was both satisfying, and very effective. *****

Acting: The film has a star studded cast that includes the likes of Christopher Lee, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Ben Kingsley. All of whom are familiar veterans that have proven time and again their talent on screen(Cohen is a relative new comer who has been proving his value more and more of recent date). The child actors did a good job, however Butterfield at times felt forced or over played. Or the concave, he seemed blank and underplayed. One scene in particular, as Butterfield has reached an emotional low, seemed very well...acted. Rather than believing one was watching a child cry, it felt as if you were watching an actor act out a child crying. Now that said Butterfield was great for his role and his performance hardly took away from the film, it added to it greatly. The aforeto mentioned scene only stands out in contrast to actors such as Ben Kingsley who disappear from the screen entirely and become their character. Naturally Butterfield is 13 and did a fine job for what he was meant to do, he gets many concessions and frankly there are many better known actors that would also pale in comparison to Kingsley. ****1/2

Editing: The editing in Hugo was fascinating to me. The use of clocks and visual effects as part of the story line was marvelous. The opening shot of the film is a gear turning and the gear fades into a landscape shot of the city of Paris. Brilliant. The editing was intriguing and notably good. Whereas much of the time editing appears invisible to the audience and is extremely subtle, the editing in Hugo was in notably good taste. Another impressive use of editing was the incorporation of old Georges Melies films within the film. It was impressive to see the old clips incorporated into the film so flawlessly.  *****

Art Direction: Another category that was spot on. The entire film lived and breathed 1930s Paris. The entire film is a visual treat. The use of cogs and gears as a motif throughout the film worked perfectly with the theme. The design of sets, characters, and so forth was perfect. As a big tribute to Georges Melies the film mirrored his vision of capturing dreams. This was extremely prevalent through the film. I was thrilled with the art direction in all aspects. *****

Cinematography: The film was well composed and well shot. The framing and use of machinery was notable and well done. The film is extremely good looking and well composed. Similar to True Grit(2010) one could almost mute the film and just look at the beautiful shooting and be happy. *****

Screenplay: Characters where well drawn, everything flowed, dialogue made sense, it was great! What stood out to me is the vast amount of side plots and subtle motifs written in with other characters in and around the train station. The use of these quite sub-plots brought general euphoria to the film. As important as the main characters were, including the side characters as reflective of the overall status of the plots served to make the whole film more relevant to the audience. The plot included a villain for which we can find pathos (Cohen) which is always appealing, and nice to see the humanist side of Hollywood, rather than the sadistic and absolutist side often show. *****

CGI/Special Effects: The most particular example of quality CGI in the film is that of a train crashing through and running out of the Parisian train station. It looked wonderful and vividly realistic. Again, the beginning shot of the clock gears fading into a Paris landscape was beautiful and brilliantly engineered. Overall the CGI/Special Effects where extremely good and in extremely good taste. *****