Mars Needs Moms tells the story of nine-year-old Milo (Seth Green, voiced by  Seth Dusky) who stows away on the spaceship that abducts his mother (Joan Cusack) – bringing the reluctant pair across the solar system to the “lifeless” red planet: Mars. Martian females have lost the ability to be motherly towards their young, and harvest the souls of earth mothers to channel into ‘mom-bots’. They’re really reaching for that 18-35 demographic here. After arriving on the planet, Milo befriends another human refugee ‘Gribble’ (voiced by Dan Fogler) and alien anarchist/hippie Ki (Elisabeth Harnois) in his quest to rescue his imprisoned mother.

Mars Needs Moms is the final film from Robert Zemeckis‘ studio, ImageMovers Digital. Released by Walt Disney Pictures, Moms is the 6th film from director Simon Wells, whose previous works include such animated classics as The Prince of Egypt and Balto. He is also the great grandson of writer H.G. Wells, and directed 2002′s adaptation of The Time Machine. The film makes use of the same performance capture technique as it’s previous films Beowulf and A Christmas Carol, which combine with strikingly beautiful animation to create a visual look that is surprisingly realistic for a kid’s film.

In fact, a lot of Moms seems to be misguided in many of its attempts to appeal to children. Dan Fogler, who stole every scene of Take Me Home Tonight as an awkward but courageous goofball, is far too over the top in his nervous portrayal of tech savvy, immature Gribble. There are very few moments in the script that we haven’t seen before, and even in the dialogue there is a certain lack of originality and inspiration. The film is marketed toward a young demographic, but fails in its attempts to appeal to the kids. There is very little physical comedy, and the few witty pieces of dialogue only hit home with the older audience members. The whole point of a kid-friendly animated film is to be goofy and over the top, like a cartoon. With motion capture, any hope of exaggerated movements or unrealistic physics is lost, since the animation is based off of real actors and realistic physics. Besides the alien characters, there are very few reasons this film couldn’t have been live action.

Moms is a well-made film, and the performance capture is first-rate. But the film simply misses the mark in its attempts to  appeal to kids. The film also struggles to clear the ‘uncanny valley’ effect that Avatar bridged so well; the characters look and act animated, but are so distinctively human in appearance that it is difficult for members of the audience to empathize with them. And despite the fact that it will be released March 11, Mars Needs Moms needs work.

Original post: Mars Needs Moms

The movie  does a good job of paying homage to the classic western – while still adding new twists like animal protagonists and slapstick animated comedy. Rango does a number of things very well, and its well-developed story is one of those. It’s a well-meditated piece that has been intricately constructed with great attention to detail. Very few ideas are presented that are not fully explored, and despite the absurdity of the plot and the level to which ‘suspension of disbelief’ is taken, the film prompts very few moments of audience incredulity. Mr. Verbinski and the ILM team do a first-class job of emersing us in Rango’s world, despite its fundamental ridiculousness.

It’s a very fun film to watch, and one of the primary reasons for this is the method in which the performances were captured. Peter Jackson and the visual effects team behind The Lord of the Rings perfected motion capture, James Cameron tested the limits of performance capturing with Avatar, and now Gore Verbinski has pioneered what may very well be the next step in recording performances digitally: emotion capture. Verbinski uses rudimentary props and costumes to set a stage for actors – whose performances are filmed and used for reference during the animation process. Rather than elaborate motion tracking suits, and little dots pockmarking their faces, the actors were able to move around freely on set in costume – something that previous systems have not allowed for. The result of this is phenomenal voice work across the board, but with a certain cohesion between voice and character that many modern animated films are lacking.

One of the most striking facets of Rango as a film are the visuals. To say that they are stunning would be a terrible understatement – the depth and detail that have gone into every nuance of every shot is mind-boggling. Rango is hands-down the most photo-realistic animated film ever released – which is a big part of why the absurd visuals work. A rattlesnake with a revolver tail sounds completely absurd, but when you can see the hot desert sun glinting off of the weathered and beaten steel with the degree of realism that it has in the film… it gets a lot more believable and a lot more scary. The art direction comes into play very heavily with this level of detail, and when the camera goes in for a close-up, the intricacies of surfaces like fur or scales really stand out as masterful works.

Johnny Depp is one of an all-star cast of actors who lend their voices to Rango, and as an ensemble performance it’s very impressive. Actors like Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Timothy Oliphant, Bill Nighy, Ned Beatty, and Stephen Root all bring a level of energy to the project that makes watching Rango a very fun time. I was particularly impressed by the work of the voice actor playing a weathered armadillo by the side of the highway, and only later learned it was a heavily accented Alfred Molina. And of course, Johnny Depp’s Rango is flat-out brilliant.

The film has a very impressive flow to it, and I think it’s only fair to give a shout out to the editors. No shot seemed out of place, or held too long on something unintentionally. Rango was very clearly crafted with a fine-toothed comb, and assembled very painstakingly in the edit room. One feature that contributes very strongly to this effect is the film’s sensational score. It’s a modern, tex-mex western theme, heavy on the latin horns and pulp guitars riffs – and although there was a collaboration with chicano rock band Los Lobos, the bulk of the soundtrack is provided by composer Hans Zimmer. Coming off his oscar nominated orchestral score for Inception, an animated family flick seemed like an unexpected choice for the artist, but the score he turns in is a brilliant piece of work that helps provide the mortar that holds Rango together.

Rango is not a film for kids, but it’s enough of a cartoon that kids will enjoy it anyway – even if they miss some of the references or high-brow wit. It’s an impressive debut from ILM and paramount, and I can only hope that Rango does well enough at the box office that the VFX company is forced to make another.

Original post: Rango

The film is substantially more dramatic, and substantially less funny than it’s trailer would lead us to believe. This is for the best, however, since the movie has some very poignant moments, taking stabs at serious topics like morality and ethics. And what it lacks in humor, it makes up for in charm and substance, with pleasantly solid performances all around. The movie certainly has its share of funny bits, but go into it expecting a drama and you’ll be better prepared for what unfolds.

Historically, Ron Howard is not a comedic director. He is most famous for his earnest and inspiring films, like A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13, but has been known to deviate from this niche (2000′s The Grinch with Jim Carey, for example). With The Dilemma, Howard has taken his predisposition towards films with heart, and applied it to a mediocre anti-romcom script. The result is a film that views like a mainstream indie – walking the line between drama and comedy while tackling issues like relationships and morality, but basing the film extensively around an overly simple premise. The result is something that doesn’t fit snuggly in any category, save the comedy/drama hybrid, ‘Dramedy’ genre. And as Dramedys go, its certainly not the best out there. It’s a stand alone film, but it suffers the same fate as far too many recent films: it doesn’t bring anything to the screen that audiences haven’t seen before.

Fans of Vince Vaughn will not be disappointed by The Dilemma – the actor’s speedy line deliveries and frank manner of speech help the film to stay fun and compelling, even when it goes in darker directions. Kevin James is as goofy and loveable as we have come to expect from him, adding some excellent physical comedy while demonstrating impressive dramatic chops when the script calls for them. The two protagonists have great chemistry together, and it’s not hard to imagine that they really have been friends for 20 years. Jennifer Connolly and Winona Ryder are in equally good form, counterpointing each others characters nicely. Connolly’s honest and open Beth seems almost saintly paired against cheating, lying Geneva. But easily the most impressive performance in the film is turned in by none other than Channing Tatum, in a small role as Zip, the other man Geneva has been seeing. He flip-flops from badass tough guy to sensitive gentleman at the drop of the hat, and brings an impressive amount of life and humor to a character that might otherwise have been flat and device-y. It makes up for Queen Latifah’s character, one with seemingly no purpose in the film other than to say strange and disturbing lines of dialogue, such as referencing her ‘lady wood’. Her character is not a necessary component in the film, and detracts from it more than it helps the story along.

The Dilemma is a great film, in that it achieves all of its goals. It sets up a very clear cut scenario, and explores in great detail one character’s struggles as he tries to work through a sticky situation. But it suffers from a lack of originality, and even it’s impressive array of plot twists don’t redeem it from this setback. It’s the kind of plot that would lend itself better to an episode of a sitcom more aptly than it would to a film. Taking all of this into account though, it’s worth seeing if you’re a fan of Ron Howard, Vince Vaugn, Kevin James, or especially Channing Tatum. But Queen Latifah fans might be better off sitting this one out.

Original post: The Dilemma

All is well in Jellystone, until a corrupt Mayor decides to re-zone the park for logging. Yogi, Boo Boo, and Ranger Rick (with the help of a documentary filmmaker played by Anna Faris) have until the end of the month to raise the necessary money to keep Jellystone open.

Yogi Bear is shot in true 3D – not, as is too often the case – in 2D and converted to 3D in post. A great job has been done in matching the live action plates to the animated characters, and allowing the two to interact flawlessly with one another. The quality of animation is pleasantly high, and although we never get an extreme close up of our bear protagonist, it’s apparent that a lot of time and effort went into the modeling and shading, even if the animation is a bit lax at times.

The movie is geared towards a younger audience, with its biggest laughs won by slapstick humor and sight gags, such as the perennial favorite ‘nut-shot’. While older audiences will enjoy the film as well, it’s not the same caliber of family film that animation studios such as Pixar have been known to produce. The script is bare-bones, the laughs mostly cheap, and the characters underdeveloped. Talented comedic actors across the board seem wasted on a dumbed-down script. The live action cast have all proven their wit in other works (Tom Cavanagh on Scrubs, Anna Farris in the Scary Movie franchise, T.J. Miller in How To Train Your Dragon) and voice actors Dan Aykroyd and Justin Timberlake seem equally stumped. While the cast have perfected their own brands of humor, they are forced to cater to a younger crowd – a stumbling block in most of the cases.

There are plenty of silly antics, and the 3D allows for some nice shock value. In short, Yogi Bear may be a fantastic kiddie film, but those people used to a 2D Yogi may be better off watching the original show.

Original post: Yogi Bear

The Tourist is a remake of the 2005 film Anthony Zimmer, directed by Jérôme Salle. Despite being helmed by German director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (He’s German – I didn’t believe it either) The Tourist has a very distinctly hollywood feel to it. The large budget, elaborate action sequences, and star-power-driven plot all play heavily into the film. But it may be a little too Hollywood-y for some.

The Tourist is plagued from the get-go with cliché. It’s a cookie-cutter plot that suffers immensely from a lack of originality or creative spark. At times, it tries its hand at being a comedy, but doesn’t commit to the humor enough to land many of its jokes. The result is a film that feels a little stale, and one that quickly induces boredom in the viewer.

Just about all the film has going for it is celebrity cast value – and with leads played by Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it’s got this in spades. Jolie is as stunning as ever, and Depp oozes with quirky charisma. He’s toned it down from performances in Pirates of the Caribbean or Alice in Wonderland, but it’s still the same Johnny we all know and love. The chemistry between them is excellent, and both actors hold their own where a lesser person might simply have slackened their jaw and gawked.

The Tourist is a faulty piece of work, propelled by its star power. While it looks stunning, and pays homage to some of the most beautiful locations in Europe, it suffers from a predictable plot and a lack of enthusiasm from all parties involved. See it if you’re a fan of either lead, otherwise go ahead and sit this one out.

Original post: The Tourist

It’s an artfully crafted film, dealing heavily with the surreal. As it explores Nina’s psyche, we follow her character from a young, naïve dancer down to the depths of insanity. It’s a winding road for the viewer, and the cringe-factor is almost unbearably high. A scene where pulling a hangnail tears a strip of flesh up her hand off is a great example of this.

Black Swan is not a film that lends itself to written or even verbal description – so much of it is a purely visceral experience that words alone will never truly do it justice. The film contains some truly haunting images, and is not for the faint of heart. There is an impressive amount of blood, gore, and horrible injury for a film about a ballet. Even the soundscape is harsh and unforgiving; a combination of an excellent Clint Mansel score and a finely crafted sound palette from sound designer Craig Henighan. These combine with Matthew Libatique’s stunning visuals to create a very powerful and emotionally poignant concoction.

The film uses an art house aesthetic structured around a simple story to bring audiences into a very intricately crafted exploration of a young woman’s psyche. But at the climax of both the film and the ballet it depicts, the movie ends. It ends in a very arrogant and presumptuous way, so much so that I found myself put off. While it would be hard to argue that Black Swan was not a powerful film, the ending critiques itself and decides that it’s hot stuff; a judgment that is usually left up to the audience to make.

If you are a fan of Arronofsky’s work, you will thoroughly enjoy Black Swan (although ‘enjoy’ may not be the right word.) Even if for no other reason than to be floored by Natalie Portman’s performance, fans of all genres should see the film. And let me know what you think about the ending, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Original post: Black Swan

The film stars Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams as Dean and Cindy, lovers whose relationship is presented over two intercut timelines: one in which they quickly fall in love, and one in which they slowly fall apart. It’s a darker, more dramatic, and less eclectic version of the (500) Days of Summer narrative structure. Rather than a romantic comedy, theatergoers will quickly realize that the film is a romantic tradgedy, with the intercut past and present segments counterpointing each other to heartbreaking effect.

It’s a thoroughly true-to-life film, with two of the most compelling characters of the year. And it’s primarily because of this that the film is as successful as it is. Both Gosling and Williams are jaw-dropping as star crossed lovers who simultaneously fall in and out of love. Their characters are some of the best developed and worst destroyed in recent memory. Gosling’s performance is particularly compelling as a talkative and kindhearted goof, as he pursues his love at first sight and endears her to him; as well as 5 years later as he is heartbroken by her lack of satisfaction with their relationship. Both actors convey the five year jump in their characters’ lives phenomenally well, its astonishing how well each character changes so drastically while remaining the same at heart.

Cianfrance’s direction in this regard is impeccable, and as the writer as well as the director, it is clear that the film is his vision from beginning to end. It has been rendered on film with great fidelity and attention to detail. Unfortunately, and this is one of very few caveats,  the way this detail is captured is with excessive use of close-up shots. Very rarely in the film do you see a character’s pants for example, and while it makes for stunningly beautiful images, the effect is a little overdone.

Cianfrance explained in an interview that he is against making films that preach a message. Consequently, his film suffers from the antithesis – know moral or resolution is to be found on this particular strip of celluloid. Audiences have grown up on conventional films, where we have been trained to expect a happy ending, or at least a resolution of some sort, maybe just a lesson learned. But Blue Valentine doesn’t provide that, and thus makes for a very sad movie viewing experience.

If you are a fan of well crafted, well acted, aesthetically beautiful, dramatic indie gems, Blue Velvet will leave you very satisfied. And definitely see the film if you enjoy outstanding performances – both Gosling and Williams are in top form. But under no circumstances see this movie on a date!

Synopsis:

A look at the idyllic past and troubled present of working-class couple Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams).

Original post: Blue Valentine

For a decade after its release in 1999, The Blair Witch Project was the most profitable film of all time. It’s budget of $60,000 was overwhelmingly eclipsed by it’s $248 million global box office earnings, giving it a 414,223% return on interest (ROI)1. That’s $414 made for each $1 spent. It was unseated in 2009 by Oren Peli’s ultra-low budget horror film, Paranormal Activity, which made $65.1 million after spending only $15,000 on production: an ROI of 433,900%. And, on top of that, the movie itself was scary as balls.

This is the stage that has been set for Paranormal Activity 2, which takes place in the months directly preceding the first film. A family moves into a swanky new house, only to have it ‘burglarized’ one night while they’re out. Upon installing security cameras, the family begins to take notice of some strange phenomena occurring in and around their house.

Tod Williams (The Door in the Floor) helms the low-budget horror flick, and makes his way through the (quite funny at times) script with no sense of urgency whatsoever. And it is perhaps this pacing, so well-executed in the first film as well, that makes Paranormal Activity 2 so effective. Viewers of Andy Warhol’s long-form films (the 5-hour film Sleep for example, depicting John Giorno sleeping in real time) reported the dullness of the movie to be so overwhelming, that typically negligible events became considerably more powerful than usual. When screened in a theater, Mr. Giorno rolling over was met with tumultuous applause, simply because it punctuated the monotony of his stagnant breathing. Warhol’s films taught us that a slow pace can be just as effective as a fast pace, a lesson Williams seems to have taken to heart. The effects of this dawdling aesthetic are that when any remotely frightening events take place, the audience is scared stiff, a small indication of the reaction observed when a supremely terrifying sequence plays out.

Williams is also able to harness the strengths and weaknesses of the mediocre HD cameras the film is shot on to augment the scare factor. The average consumer is much more familiar with seeing life through the lens of a family friendly handycam than they are familiar with seeing it through the prime lens of a 35mm film camera pointed at a professionally lit hollywood soundstage. This familiarity juxtaposes itself with more ubiquitous horror films, where production value and gory effects take center stage over sheer relatability. HD security cameras, and their grainy nighttime footage, offer not only a more realistic feel, but the poor quality generates a certain level of ambiguity. And in a horror film, as with life, the unknown is the scariest thing out there.

The acting in the film is almost entirely directed towards making the audience empathize with the characters. And although it is clear that lots of work has gone into making the characters fun and relatable, the principal actors are able to play it off tremendously, using witty, heavily improvised segments to make the audience laugh and feel more connected to the protagonist family. Molly Ephraim (College Road Trip) in particular was astonishingly sincere in her portrayal of Ali, the daughter of the family. Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat reprise their roles from the original film, although they are more background characters than anything else.

I had the good fortune of seeing Paranormal Activity 2 amidst a fully-packed theater of those that had the requested a New York premiere of the film, meaning everybody was single-mindedly awaiting a horror experience like no other. It’s always fun when an audience gets into a movie, but this was the most enthusiastic screening I have attended. Paranormal Activity 2 may not be the scariest movie out there, but  when viewed in the right conditions, it is certainly up there. Those considering seeing the movie should do so soon, not just while it is still on the big screen, but also while people are still lining up to see it. It’s a movie where you get out of it what you put in. Skeptics should avoid, but if you have an open mind and appreciate a good scare, Paranormal Activity 2 is the film for you.

1http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/paranormal-now-most-profitable-film-ever-9335?page=1

Original post: Paranormal Activity 2

Odds are, if you’re reading this, you already know that you fall into one of two categories. They are:
People who find the Jackass team’s antics funny and entertaining, and people who suck.

Jackass is not for the faint of heart. Anybody who has ever watched the show or the films will know that nothing gets done halfway. With each new schtick, the writers and characters push the limits of pain, disgust, and stupidity; never failing to elicit a reaction from us, the audience.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that a lot of contemporary films could learn a thing or 2 from Jackass. For instance, the creative team is always aware of its goals, and always achieving them. If something is supposed to be gross, it will be the single most vile thing imaginable, and you may very well blow chunks onto the row of people in front of you. And if something is meant to be funny, you will likely pee yourself laughing. Nothing is half-assed: there’s a level of dedication and commitment to each segment that is truly commendable.

Fans of the cast of characters that make up the Jackass crew will be pleased to know that all have returned for this third cinematic installment. And almost all are on peak form. While the likes of Johnny Knoxville and Bam Margera are constantly plowing ahead with reckless abandon, Steve-O in particular seems to have lost the will to be certifiably insane. While before he was always the first to jump at a challenge, be it papercutting his lip or stabbing a fishhook through his cheek, Jackass 3D sees a more apprehensive and wary Steve-O. And it doesn’t help that his voice sounds like crap. It’s a constant reminder that things have changed since Jackass premiered 10 years ago, and the nostalgic end credits do nothing to abate this sentiment.

Everyone has their own stance on 3D cinema, whether they think its just a phase or are positive its the future of the film industry. Regardless of any preconceived notions, Jackass 3D is able to fully harness the power of 3D technology in a way that only minds as grossly perverted as theirs would be able to. The added dimension lends itself so thoroughly to their antics, that it’s difficult to imagine watching the goings on without it. Jackass is at its best when its at its most visceral, making you laugh and squirm and retch. Adding a more real perspective to the documentary style coverage does nothing but heighten the painful reality of the proceedings. It is a brilliant application of a frequently mal-used technology.

Overall, you probably know enough already to judge whether or not you will like the movie. It’s as gross, painful, and hilarious as any previous Jackass film, if not more so. And the 3D is the greatest addition Jackass could have asked for. Love it or hate it, Jackass 3D is an amazing piece of work.

Original post: Jackass 3D

My Soul to Take begins by introducing a schizophrenic serial killer, ‘The Ripper’, who is apprehended by police after killing his wife, suffering multiple stab and gunshot wounds, and generally having no coherent medical reason for his continued pulse. The incapacitated Ripper comes to in an ambulance en route to the hospital, and kills the medical staff on hand, causing a spectacular car crash that flips the ambulance end over end towards a river bank. As police arrive on scene, the ambulance inexplicably combusts. Despite all of these factors, everyone seems certain that the Ripper (or at least his soul) has survived and will be return to take a new body and kill again.

Now this is just the exposition, but it is very indicative of the rest of the movie. There is a consistent lack of coherence throughout the film — a by-product of establishing a world with rules that draw from different horror cliches at different times, and has no semblance of consistency when using them. We are lead to believe, for instance, that this is a modern day film taking place in an average country town in rural Massachusetts. But the police seem to have no trouble accepting the fact that a dead serial killer can possess the body of a mild mannered teenager and continue his psychotic rampage. It’s a film about this type of supernatural horror goings-on, but the characters seem to live as though these are not strange things. When the serial killer inevitably returns from the dead 16 years later (which is a well known fact amongst the community, as if it’s obvious that the stabbed, shot, and incinerated psychopath will return from the grave and begin to kill the seven 16-year-olds who were born the day he died…. somehow, this is just general knowledge.) he does indeed begin to stalk and kill the ‘Riverton Seven’.

The Riverton Seven are seven kids from the local high school who share the same birthday as The Ripper’s obituary. One of them is our protagonist, Bug, played by Max Thieriot. Bug is a sensitive and troubled only-child, who, in typical sensitive teen fashion, has a crush on the most popular girl in school. It’s here that the movie ceases to be a movie, and quickly becomes a series of unrelated ideas, poorly strung together as a film. Craven seems to reach into a bag labeled ‘creepy cinematic things’ and assemble them randomly, like magnetic poetry on a fridge. And the films has about the same level of coherence.

Why does Bug have the ability to channel the personalities and speech patterns of the other 6 kids? Why does looking into a bathroom mirror allow him to see the dead? And since we know the ripper is one of the seven kids, why does he talk like a 40 year old chain-smoker and suddenly become 7 feet tall and 250 pounds when disguised by a big coat and a Rastafarian wig? And what kind of kid climbs into a second story window to enter his room? And why are all the popular girls at school secretly a well organized crime family? And what kind of a name is ‘Bug’???

These are just a few of the questions I found myself asking as I watched the movie. It’s like watching a collection of every idea Wes Craven has had in the last 16 years that haven’t found their way into other movies. It’s a poorly structured film, and at times it is actually laughable how little it makes sense. the main selling point remains that the film is offered in 3D, but this is really more of a detraction since it’s not true 3D, and the parallel projections cause the image to be twice as dark as it would be otherwise. Combined with the usual horror flick aesthetic of dimly lit spaces and night terrors, this makes My Soul to Take hard to watch physically as well as mentally.

This is not Mr. Craven’s best work, and I would suggest fans of the horror genre (and indeed film in general) to pass this one up. Or if you’re a fan of terrible dialogue, there are a few particular choice lines, my favorite being: (Out of nowhere, Wounded Cop shoots The Ripper as he attempts to maul Defenseless Female Cop) Wounded Cop: “That’s for shut the f*ck up!”

Original post: My Soul to Take