50/50 Review #1: Jackie Brown.

Welcome to the first post of the 50/50 Project. I've been wanting to see this one for a while, as it's the only full-length Tarantino I hadn't seen. Though from what I had heard, it was one of his lesser efforts (or at least the one nobody seems to talk about). Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a flight attendant who brings money back from Mexico for an arms dealer named Ordell (Samuel L. Jackson). Ordell is meanwhile entertaining Louis (Robert De Niro), a guy who has recently gotten out of jail, by letting him hang around and chat up Melanie (Bridget Fonda). But after Ordell takes care of a situation with Beaumont (Chris Tucker), he hires a bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster) to get Jackie out of jail when she gets mixed up in the situation. But a couple FTA agents, including Ray (Michael Keaton), want her to bust Ordell, bringing up a complicated heist-like situation.

I can understand why nobody tends to talk about this one out of the Tarantino filmography. The man is known for a certain style, but it seems only half of style was there. The film was almost all dialogue, as his films always are, but the dialogue this time around wasn't super interesting. Tarantino also tends to have a kind of kinetic style, a certain energy to his films, and this was also lacking here. At least half the movie felt dry and stagnant. I guess it just didn't have the usual pizzazz one would expect from Tarantino.

The part of the movie that did feel stylish and did finally catch my interest was the last 45 minutes (roughly). Basically when the money exchange sequence happens up through the end of the movie. The whole sequence plays with narrative style in a way I really enjoy, not to mention it's just a fun and suspenseful sequence.

Despite the flaws elsewhere, the acting was really good all around. Everyone seemed to be having fun, but the most fun to watch was Robert De Niro. It wasn't a very De Niro-type role, and he was pretty funny just doing pretty much nothing for the majority of the movie. By the third act, he's more De Niro-ish, but it's all good. On the whole, everybody does the best they can with what they were given.

In the end, I agree this was a weaker effort from Tarantino, but it's still a decent film. It's just that in the front 2/3s of the film, there were a lot of scenes that really dragged and could have been trimmed down. There were some key visuals that definitely made it Tarantino (some worked, others were slightly awkward), but something just didn't mesh well. Though, again, the last third of the film was entertaining enough to really hike up my feelings on the rest of it, so at least it ends on a high note, making the rest of the film worth sitting through.


I Am McLovin!

60/60 Extra: Casino.

Note: For only the second time in this project, I will have to use the short review format.

------------------------

Premise: Two mobster friends have troubles while running a Casino in Vegas... or something.

Starring: Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone, James Woods, Kevin Pollack, and Don Rickles.

My Reaction: I can't emphasize enough... how little I cared about this movie. It's not that I didn't care for it. It's that I just really didn't care. It starts out somewhat stylish enough with an interesting alternating voice-over and whatnot. But that just keeps going. After 40 minutes of voice-over explanations and no real story to speak of... it lost me. I'll be honest--I just started chatting it up with my podcast co-host, Steve for the next 2 and a half hours or however long I had left in this way-too-long movie. Yeah, I was still paying half attention to the movie, but it was so dull and uninteresting to me I just couldn't care less. It's not a poorly made film on a technical or acting level. Not at all. It was just yet another flick that wasn't for me. Sorry.


Feed Me, Seymour!

(P.S. Only for quality purposes and random bits of intrigue do I give it this high of a rating. It certainly doesn't deserve to be in the same lower ratings as some of the other films I've seen. Again, I don't think it was bad--I just didn't care.)

(P.P.S. Just to spur things on even more... I, funnily enough, wrote this review while I was only half-paying attention, as well. I was watching television of some sort.)

60/60 Review #46: The Godfather Part II.

I've only seen The Godfather once, and it was a few years ago, hence why only the second and third are on this list. Now, I'm not sure if the fact I haven't seen it in a while adds or detracts anything from the viewing of its sequel. I'm also not sure if it even matters. The majority of films on this 60/60 List are reviewable because while they might universally be considered classics or essentials, they aren't all necessarily universally loved and adored--if that makes sense. However, there are a handful of films on this list that surpass opinion. So far, such have been films like Citizen Kane or Casablanca. The Godfather Part II is not only considered one of the best sequels of all time, but one of the best films ever made (generally found in most film snobs Top 5s and/or 10s), and some argue it even better than the original. Even as of this review, it's in the #3 spot on the imdb Top 250 (whatever that means to you). Long story short, it's damn pointless to review this film.

But I'm gonna do it anyway. Just because.

This is both a prequel and a sequel, giving us two parallel stories juxtaposed against each other. First is the rise of Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) and how he inevitably became The Godfather. The second is of his son, Michael (Al Pacino), and his fall as he tries to take hold of and control the family business. The film co-also stars Diane Keaton, John Cazale, and Robert Duvall.

The best way to look at this is to look at the two segments separately and then together. I found the De Niro flashback segments to be the best parts of the film. It was the more interesting half by far, and I actually cared about his rise to power (despite knowing his fate from the first film). De Niro is pretty excellent in the role, especially imitating Marlon Brando's voice from the first film... while simultaneously speaking almost entirely in Italian. But I suppose he did win an Oscar for this role for a reason. Part of me wishes more of the film (or even the majority of it) would have followed this part of the story instead.

The Pacino segments were decent in their own right, and he definitely gained back some of the respect and credibility I'd lost from him over the last couple films (granted, this one came before it, but still). He did very good. That being said, this side of the film wasn't really that exciting to me. I didn't care about the characters or what was going on. The family drama was dull (except for the whole "who betrayed him?" part, but that was only near the beginning. Also, the "abortion" scene was very well done and intense and heartbreaking). And unfortunately, there was more of this part of the film than the other. It wasn't bad or poorly done or anything--it just wasn't for me.

As they're juxtaposed, it works pretty well. And the pacing is pretty good. For the most part, it's kept pretty even. You'll get a long segment of one, then a long segment of the other; a short for one, a short for the other. But there are times when it's not so even and you can tell (and, as you can probably figure, it's usually in favor of the Pacino segments).

I'm not going to review the quality of this film. As an understatement, it's good. The music, cinematography, acting, etc... as I've said before, it's considered one of the greatest films ever made and it won 6 Oscars. There's a reason for all of that. Films of poor quality don't typically reach those standards. So instead, I can only review it on entertainment level, and as we know... entertainment value changes on a person-to-person basis. So for me, I enjoyed half the movie quite a bit; the other half of the movie... was alright. And the length (oh yeah, you knew I wasn't gonna let that slide)? 3 and a half hours... I'd actually say it's not too far off the length it should be. I'd say it could probably lose 30-45 minutes, most of it in the first half. But that's a bit too long for an adequate evening enjoyment. All of that being said, my scoring based on my personal entertainment level would be...


I Am McLovin!

(P.S. Let the hatred begin.)

60/60 Extra: The Untouchables.

I said last time I was surprised how I liked the first film of this month so much. Let's make that 2 for 2. This one takes place during the Prohibition during the reign of Al Capone (Robert De Niro). Treasury Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is out to get him, so he puts together a team including beat cop Jim Malone (Sean Connery), Oscar Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), and a young rookie named George Stone (Andy Garcia). Together they become known as the Untouchables, as they are somehow beyond the law, yet cannot be bribed or turned dirty. Patricia Clarkson also co-stars as Ness' wife.

I was into this movie from the opening credits. Why? The music. I think that had a big reason as to why I enjoyed this movie so much. The score of this film is absolutely fantastic. But that shouldn't be a big surprise. Doing a bit of looking about, the composer is the same man who composed, among many other things, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (then again, he also did Salo...). But anyway, I just loved the score from opening to closing.

The film is also very well paced. It's 2 hours long and, in something quite rare lately, I didn't feel that length. In fact, the only reason I would look at the clock was because I watched it at a late hour and needed to see how much time I had left before I had to get to bed. So, yes, it held me captivated, and I never felt it really dragged at all.

The acting was both a strength and a weakness. Sean Connery was fantastic, and he was my favorite character in the film. Dr Niro and Garcia ate up their scenes in their respective ways. Costner was fine, though his character was relatively dull... at least in comparison to the others. But I think he acted it to the best of his abilities.

There's also some good action, though at times it can get a bit cheesy. There's a particular scene with a baby carriage (with a long setup) and a long slow-motion shootout that comes to mind. It's a fun scene in a strange way, but it's also very silly at the same time. I don't hold it as a detriment to the film, though. It's charming in its own way.

And I think that's the best way I can describe the film. Sure, it's violent and gritty at times, but there's a certain charm to it. The music, the characters, the action, the dialogue... it just has a great charm to it all. Most movie reviewers will tell you that positive reviews are much more difficult to write than negative ones, so I'll just leave it at this. It's a fun film, and I recommend it to those who like the crime genre who have not yet seen it.


Royale With Cheese

60/60 Review #44: GoodFellas.

Between the two "Crime" months on this list, I thought I'd enjoy the first one much more seeing it dealt with heists and the like. I was more worried about the second month due to a few things: 1) it following the longest month on this list, 2) it having a bunch of long films one after the other, and 3) it being about mobsters, which doesn't overly excite me. So color me surprised when I enjoyed very little of last month... and I'm already starting off this one in a very good way.

Goodfellas doesn't exactly have one straight story as much as it is the life and times of Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) and his mob family. This family includes Paulie (Tom Sorvino), Jimmy (Robert De Niro), and Tommy (Joe Pesci). It also eventually includes his wife, Karen (Lorraine Bracco). Henry raises in the ranks and respects of his new family and goes has to deal with a handful of screw-ups.

The acting is top notch and a lot of fun. Joe Pesci, who earned a supporting actor Oscar for his role, is fantastic as the hot head Tommy. And this was a case where I knew some quotes and didn't realize they were from this movie (the "you're a funny guy" scene, for instance). Ray Liotta was good, but I've always thought he has a weird laugh (and he laughs a lot in this movie). It's mostly because of his teeth. But I still really liked him in it, despite his character turning out to be a total bastard by the end. And the kid who plays the younger version of him looks just like him.

Scorcese's direction is great, too, but there's something interesting I noticed. The visual style, the use of the camera, the dialogue, the music... it all reminded me heavily of early Tarantino. Hell, there's even a short appearance by Samuel L. Jackson. And it makes me wonder how influential this film was on Tarantino's beginnings with things like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. Moreso early in the film, there were a lot of long shots. There were some interesting shots, especially the more violent moments, too. And the use of music... I'm feeling redundant now, but everything about this movie made me think of early Tarantino.

The film is about two and a half hours long, but it never really drags. I was never bored. But you can still tell it's two and a half hours... if that makes sense. I don't have anything incredibly insightful to say about the movie. I can tell you I really, really enjoyed it. I would definitely watch it again. And if you've not seen it and you like crime films, I strongly recommend it. There's good humor, good dialogue, good acting, good "action" (though it's more just quick violence than outright action)... just all around very good.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This is a strong rating--probably 4.5 out of 5. I would have given it the next rating up, but a little over halfway through, I started feeling the length. That's really the only thing I have against it.)

60/60 Review #39: Heat.

PLEASE WATCH BEFORE READING. THANK YOU.



So what a better way to start a month of heists, cops, and robbers than with Heat? It's more a movie of themes than one of structured story, so it's difficult to give a plot synopsis. The best I can give is that Neil McCauly (Robert De Niro) is a professional criminal who is continually pulling big heists. Lt. Hanna (Al Pacino) is the cop hot on his trail. And there are over a dozen other characters, almost all with their own subplot, it seems. I know that doesn't give the story justice, but it's the best I got.

First, we have to look at this cast list. Besides this being the first time De Niro and Pacino were on screen together, we have a cast that also includes the following: Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd, Ted Levine, Dennis Haysbert, William Fichtner, Natalie Portman, Tom Noonan, Hank Azaria, Danny Trejo, Henry Rollins, Mykelti Williamson, Tone Loc (seriously), Jeremy Piven, and Xander Berkeley. Now that's a freakin hardcore cast right there.

My biggest complaint on the movie is that it's way too damn long. It's just shy of 3 hours. This is mostly thanks to subplots that really didn't need to be there. Sure, you could argue that they add a more human element to the story and the characters. However, there are so many of them that all you get is surface level stuff and aren't left with enough time to truly explore the intimacies of each one. Natalie Portman has daddy issues--we get about 3 scenes letting us in on it before a climactic moment near the end, but we're never given anything beyond the point of him never being there for her. A lot of these guys have marital or relationship issues, but outside of some arguments in the home, it's never explored within the psyche of each character. It's left at the scene and just waits until they're together again before they argue some more. It's almost like it's there just for the sake of being there, not to affect the characters in any personal way (the closest it gets is at the end when De Niro has to make a choice, but that's about it). And there are so many other little subplots that do nothing but take up time and don't add much. Don't even get me started on Dennis Haysbert's character, who only seems to be there for thematic purposes.

I suppose in this sense, the film tries to be grander than the box it puts itself in. It wants to be a size 14 shoe in a size 10 box--it almost fits, but it needs to shrink a few inches in order to do it. And I'm not saying it should remove them completely... just choose more carefully and expand on what you have left. Really, I feel the film is easily an hour too long (at the least). It also says a lot that while there were times I was distracted on my laptop, I could look up at the scene and know exactly what was going on without even hearing dialogue. Most times I'll get lost and have to rewind or something to catch what I missed. But I was easily able to follow this film even while not paying close attention (don't worry, I only did that for no more than 20 minutes of the whole film, and sporadically). You can take that how you want--as a sign of good film-making or a sign of being clearly formulaic.

But I personally don't find that really to the detriment of the film. Besides some slow pacing here and there, there are some fantastic scenes in between. The shootouts and robberies are fun and loud and adrenaline-filled. But the best scene, hands down, was (obviously) the diner scene. Sure it might not have been as long as you wanted it to be, but it portrayed some of the finest acting between De Niro and Pacino inside or outside of this film (definitely Pacino's best moment in this film, as I was otherwise trying not to laugh at his over-the-topness throughout the rest, particularly the first half of the film. But that's just Pacino).

The last thing I want to mention is the soundtrack. It was strangely quiet through the majority of the film. I noticed while watching how low the music was, even during an action scene where it was heavier music that would normally be cranked up to increase your adrenaline and get you going. To me, it was almost non-existent. That being said, it only increased my reaction to the music of the final scene of the film. Not to spoil anything, but as we're given our final shot, we hear this haunting music playing at an actual normal level, which leads us into the ending credits. It's a fantastic number, and it really elevates the mood of the closing.

So I'm glad I've finally seen Heat, and if you wanna talk about it (I'm not a loser!) and/or argue why I'm wrong about everything, feel free to comment below. It's a fine crime film with an outstanding cast. It just could have used some trimming. I'll probably revisit it someday, but probably not for a while. So until then, I'll just leave it by saying I enjoyed it.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This rating is ironic considering Keanu was apparently originally up for Kilmer's role in the film, which I find really funny after-the-fact since I kept thinking early on how the role would have fit Keanu nicely.)

60/60 Review #12: Brazil.

Note: For reference, there are apparently 2-3 versions of this film. I caught the longest version, which was about 2 and a half hours long.

---------------------------

I knew going into this movie that it was a strange dystopian film. But that's about all I knew. But when I fell asleep for about fifteen minutes (tiredness, not boredom) and woke up to see a guy in a suit of armor with wings running from zombie-esque creatures and fighting a giant samurai, I was really like... WTF? Of course, I rewound it and caught what I missed and then finished the movie. But still, overall, the movie is a total mindfuck.

For those that don't know, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) works for a world-running corporation that, due to a clerical error, makes a mistake and takes away (and eventually kills) the wrong man. Who they meant to take was Tuttle (Robert De Niro), one of many terrorists who fight against the oppressive government. Sam must also deal with his overbearing mother (Katherine Helmond), who is getting a major reconstructive facial surgery from her doctor (Jim Broadbent). He also has to deal with other people who work for said corporation, like his boss (Ian Holm), a couple workers (including Bob Hoskins), and a friend named Jack (Michael Palin). Sam ends up in the middle of a conspiracy when he sees a woman of his dreams (literally) named Jill (Kim Greist) and tries to figure out who she is.

That's the sanest way to describe this movie. Visually, it's fantastic. The basic visual style alone looks much more modern and clearer, especially considering this was made in the 80s. But then there's all the special stuff, like all the set designs and the fantasy sequences where Sam imagines himself flying and all sorts of things happen. It's a wonderful film to look at.

It's also pretty funny. Most of its entertainment comes from some wacky comedy. The characters can be a hoot and are written well. And the actors do well to show this. Though the whole thing isn't a comedy. One of the strange things about the film is its inconstant tonal shifts. Sometimes its funny, sometimes absurd, sometimes dead serious, sometimes freaky... it just depends on how it feels at the moment.

I don't necessarily have any major issues with the film. A lot of people complain that the movie takes forever to go anywhere and they get bored. I can honestly say I wasn't really ever bored with it, and it didn't bother me that it didn't seem to go anywhere at first (OK, so the first 30-45 minutes or so did drag at times, but it didn't bug me too bad). I can't even say that the movie eventually went off the rails; the movie was never on the rails. It's just insane through and through.

I honestly don't know how to review this movie. It's... too strange. I think I liked it. I know I didn't dislike it. It's been a day since I've watched it, and I still can't wrap my head around it. I know everything was metaphorical and/or allegorical and whatnot... but yeah. I really have nothing else I can say. So I guess I'll just leave it at that. It's an entertaining and well made yet thoroughly bizarre film.


WTF

(P.S. That wraps up "Foreign" Month. Tune in next week when I transition into "Comedy" month with my transitional film, Kentucky Fried Movie.)

MACHETE.

We all know the story. Robert Rodriguez made the fake Machete trailer for Grindhouse, it because a cult sensation, and he eventually decided to turn it into a full-length feature. This is that feature. But did it live up to expectations? Machete (Danny Trejo) is a Mexican Federale whose family is killed by a drug lord named Torrez (Steven Seagal). He survives, but enters the U.S. illegally. Eventually, he is hired by Booth (Jeff Fahey) to assassinate Senator McLaughlin (Robert DeNiro), who is rerunning for office under the platform of sending all illegal immigrants back to Mexico and building a giant fence. Unfortunately, it was just a ruse, and they try to set up and kill Machete for their own gain. Again, Machete lives, but this time, he's out for vengeance. Along the way, he teams up with a taco stand/revolutionary named Luz (Michelle Rodriguez); a federal immigration agent named Sartana (Jessica Alba); and his priest brother, Padr (Cheech Marin). Also in the mix are Booth's wife June (Alicia Marek) and daughter April (Lindsey Lohan), as well as a professional hit man named Osiris (Tom Savini).

This movie is almost too complicated, which I think is one of its biggest issues. It tries to do too much. Sure, it has one hell of a cast, but it sometimes feels bloated. It also tends to be almost too preachy at times, particularly in the first half of the movie. Also, though this was rare, it took itself a bit too seriously at times. These were almost always moments of non-action, though... and, again, mostly in the first half of the film.

Besides that, my only other complaint is that sometimes there wasn't enough action. Either there would be long stretches with no major action, or there would be an action scene where it was filmed at awkward angles and you didn't get to see it particularly well (the showdown between Trejo and Seagal is the worst offender of this).

However, the action you do get and do see is flippin' fantastic. Let's just say there was a lot of cheering, clapping, and laughing throughout this movie in my audience. It's hilarious, bloody, over-the-top, and super fun. You could tell the filmmakers had fun with it. Of note are the opening scene and the hospital escape scene.

There's a decent amount of nudity in the film, as well. And while I think that too much nudity in a movie can ruin it, I actually think this movie could have benefited from having a little more. Unfortunately (for you guys and/or lesbians out there), you don't see Jessica Alba nude. She has a shower sequence, but she's standing in just the right position where you see absolutely nothing. And the one time you see Lindsey Lohan's character topless, I don't think it's actually her, as her face is always hidden... and every time you do see her face clearly, her breasts are always covered somehow. And I find this strange, considering she's done nude photo-shoots and whatnot. But anyway...

I know this seems like a lot of complaining, but the movie was really entertaining. It wasn't perfect, but all the fake trailer scenes (from my knowledge) are in the film. If they would have shortened it slightly or exchanged some of the unnecessary dramatic scenes for more exploitation scenes, it would have been even better. As it stands, it's a great action flick with some really fun comedy and lots of blood and boobs.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

P.E.S.T.

I really do apologize that y'all aren't receiving much lately. This would have been a good movie-viewing weekend, too... had it not been for stupid Hurricane Ike heading directly for us. But alas, even though I shall be in the evacuation process by the time you read this, I shall still give you it anyway... and that 'it' is none other than... Pre-Emptive Strike Thursday! (No hurricane/evacuation pun intended... or 9/11 pun, either, as I just realized that it'll be 9/11 when this is posted. Anyway...).

-----------------------

Title: The Women.

Pre-Thoughts: ...Come again? I've never even heard of this movie... at least, I didn't until one of the teachers at the high school randomly brought it up last week. I haven't seen a trailer or heard anything about it. But it has the following people in it: Meg Ryan, Annette Benning, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett Smith, Bette Midler, Carrie Fisher, and Cloris Leachman. It probably should have been re-title "The Women... Without Huge Careers Anymore All In One Movie." So... yeah, probably not gonna see it.

Pre-Score: Uh... couldn't tell you even if I wanted to.



Title: Burn After Reading.

Pre-Thoughts: The next big Coen Brothers movie, and one of the big two coming out this weekend. Personally, even though the trailer doesn't give too much information on what the hell the movie is actually about (except a computer disc, a disgruntled and slightly awkward John Malcovich, and a dancing Brad Pitt), I think it'll be pretty good. The Coen's are great directors, especially in their comedies (gotta love The Big Lebowski). And amazingly enough, it will be coming here, so that's awesome.

Pre-Score:

A Keanu 'Whoa'



Title: The Family That Preys.

Pre-Thoughts: On the one hand, it's a clever pun in the title. On the other hand, it's Tyler Perry... yet again.

Pre-Score:

The Zed Word



Title: Nothing Is Private.

Pre-Thoughts: ...except the advertising on this film, which I haven't seen. I've heard of it, of course (under it's other name, Towelhead), but I haven't really kept up much on it. Though I've heard it's really good. I'll keep an eye out for it, though I don't think it's coming here.

Pre-Score:

A Keanu 'Whoa'


Title: Righteous Kill.

Pre-Thoughts: Earlier this year, we were blessed with the pairing of Jet Li and Jackie Chan in one film. Now that we're later into the year, we have a movie that, after 20 or 30 years, has re-united Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. I think it looks good, though with the potential of becoming overrated. But I'll have to check it out before I say anything. It's number two on my list (Burn After Reading comes first). Otherwise, yeah, I'd check it out.

Pre-Score:

I Am McLovin!

2 In 1: MirrorMask and Stardust.

The theme for this 2 In 1 is Neil Gaiman. That’s right, the man of twisted fantasy. He has a great imagination and his work truly shows it. In fact, the first on this list, MirrorMask, is the movie I always turn to when I’m writing anything fantastical and have writer’s block. It always seems to help pull me out of it. So here goes.

MirrorMask.

MirrorMask is pure imagination, truly. It is twisted, imaginative, and incredibly hard to describe. But I’ll give it a shot, anyway. Most people want to run away and join the circus. Helena (Stephanie Leonidas) is in the circus and wants to run away and join real life. But after a big argument with her mother (Gina McKee), and her mother falls ill with some type of cancer, Helena grows depressed at having said certain things to her mother. So Helena falls asleep, has a crazy nightmare, and wakes up. But when she wakes up, she wakes up in another realm: a realm of imagination and incredibly bizarre things based on Helena’s drawings. She joins up with witty Valentine (Jason Barry) and discovers that a Shadow is destroying the kingdom of Light because the Queen of Light (Gina McKee, again) has basically fallen into a coma because a ‘charm’ has been stolen by the kingdom of Dark’s princess (Stephanie Leonidas, again). And to top it all off, this Anti-Helena has taken Helena's place in the real world to mess up her life. So now it’s up to Helena and Valentine to travel this realm and try to find this charm, even though they have no idea what it is or where to look, and find a way back home before it's too late.

Like The Wizard of Oz, almost every character portrayed in the fantasy realm is played by an actor or actress that portrays a character in the reality realm. The acting is great and a lot of the characters are pretty funny/witty, especially Valentine (so the script/dialogue is great, as well). And the plot is great and touching. You really feel Helena’s pain and fear for her mother. The whole movie can really be seen on a whole other level, for this dream reality being Helena’s way of dealing with her life (much like the kids in Bridge to Terabithia, except more constant).

The special effects are phenomenal. You can tell stuff isn’t real, but it’s so fitting with the world that it works, because the world is imagination. It’s all based on Helena’s drawings and surroundings in the normal world. Some of my favorite scenes include Giants Orbiting (amazing scene), the monkey/bird ‘Bobs’ scene, and the scene in which Helena is becoming Dark Helena via the jack-in-the-box women (which can be seen as a runner-up in my Best Random Song/Dance Numbers article). Visually, this movie is pure special effects, really.

When I first saw this movie, I was like ‘what the hell did I just watch?’ But the more I thought about it, and the more times I watched it, I grew to love it more and more. In fact, I watched it again last night and gained even more love for it. Not many movies do that with me (Shaun of the Dead was another movie that this happens to me with). This was really a tough movie to score. I went back and forth a lot, but I suppose its gotta be done.

Royale With Cheese

Stardust.

This one is much more light-hearted than the previous (and that’s a cool thing about Neil Gaiman. He can write the full spectrum. If you see/read Stardust, you would never think he was the same person to write American Gods. Well, maybe I would, because I’m the same way with my writing, some dark some light). Anyway, this one is about Tristan (Charlie Cox), who lives in the town of Wall, which is, amazingly enough, surrounded by a wall. Outside the wall is a realm of magic. Tristan is in love/lust with Victoria (Sienna Miller), even though she’s going to be proposed to in a week by somebody else. So when they see a falling star, he promises that he will cross the wall and bring her back the fallen star in exchange for her hand in marriage. But when he gets there, the star turns out to have taken a human form, Yvaine (Claire Danes). Meanwhile, a witch named Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer) is after the fallen star for her heart so she can gain youth. Simultaneously, evil Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) is after a jeweled necklace that knocked Yvaine out of the sky that she now wears around her neck, so that he can become the next king. Complicated much?

Anywho, this is one heck of an adventure. From Robert De Niro’s Captain Shakespeare and beyond, this movie is just plain fun. There is magic all over the place, comedy spread throughout, and it just has a cool story. Sure, there’s a ton going on, but it never seems convoluted in any way.

The acting is great, especially from Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro, who you could tell had loads of fun with their roles (especially De Niro). And once Tristan gets his makeover, his character gets a bit cooler, as well.

The special effects are pretty decent. The coolest scene has to be the Voodoo doll sword fight toward the end. The actor basically had to be on wires and act as a marionette, fighting with his eyes closed (avoiding saying who to not spoil those who haven’t seen it yet, though it’s relatively spoiled in the movie’s trailer anyway).

There’s not much more to say about the movie. It was a magical, fun, and funny adventure. I think it would be really hard to dislike this movie, honestly. I could see some people being turned off by parts of it, but it just seems to me to be this feel-good fantasy adventure.

A Keanu 'Whoa'