How To Train Your Dragon (2010)

Directed by: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders

Starring: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera

IMDB Page

Lets face it, if you've been in the business of making feature length computer animated films, you've been chasing Pixar for the past 15 years. Many studios have tried to match the charm, humor, and heart that Pixar seems to nail every single time, and haven't succeeded yet. There have been a few memorable attempts, like DreamWork's Shrek (which has been wrung dry by a number of less than stellar sequels). With How To Train Your Dragon, DreamWorks still hasn't topped Pixar, but it has come pretty dang close. Lets just hope they don't ruin it with a bunch of crummy follow ups. 

I've heard the sequels were only made so Eddie Murphy wouldn't starve trying to find work. 

How To Train Your Dragon takes place on the fictional Island of Berk during Viking times. The island is almost constantly under attack by dragons, who will destroy houses and make off with the villagers' livestock. Most of the time of inhabitants is taken up by repelling the dragon attacks, or supporting the effort through other means. Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is having trouble living up to his father and village leader, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler). He desperately wants to kill a dragon himself, but is kept back by his father and others out of fear he will be killed or hurt. 

Against his fathers wishes, Hiccup sets out to kill a dragon on his own. Using one of his inventions, he downs a "Night Fury", the most feared type of dragon that is known to the villagers.  Once face to face, he finds himself unable to kill the creature, letting it go instead. The dragon, nicknamed Toothless, is unable to fly on his own. With the help of Hiccup, Toothless regains his flight abilities. Soon, the two learn to trust each other, becoming good friends. But that friendship is soon put to the test when Hiccup's father leads an attack on the dragon nest. 

The story isn't anything too new for an animated fare, following a familiar path with only a few small deviations: Character X is misunderstood. Character X meets character Y, who is also misunderstood. Character X and Y become friends, much to the disapproval of their respective friends and family. At some point, there is an epiphany, and character X and Y must save the day. Everyone loves them, the end. This doesn't stop the story from being good, its quite good in fact, just not anything new in the area of kid friendly animation. 

Speaking of animation, this is an amazing looking film. The fire and smoke legitimately look real. Textures and fabrics look fantastic. One of the other things How to Train Your Dragon does well is facial animations. While the human characters are still caricatures of human beings, they emote visually as well as any live action actor. This holds especially true for Toothless, who is only able to "act" through various facial expressions and animal like noises. The dragon can go from a "puppy dog" look to "I am going to murder you" in an instant, with the ability to show off a large range in between. 

Action scenes are plentiful and well done. The aerial shots are spectacular, with a mix between fast paced dogfights, or slow cruises through the clouds.  I wish I could have seen it in theaters, I bet it would have given James Cameron's Avatar a run for its money in the 3D department. 

The supporting cast of characters isn't as nearly as interesting as our two stars. They provide not much more than a couple of laughs. The voice talents are good, each fitting their role suitably. Like I said above, most of the entertainment comes from the chemistry between Toothless and Hiccup. This is impressive, considering Jay Baruchel was not only reading lines off of paper in a tiny room, but his "costar" didn't even exist outside the minds of the animators and artists that brought him to life. 

Bottom Line: 9/10:  While How To Train Your Dragon still isn't as good as some of Pixar's greats, its the closest another animation studio has ever come. A charming story, combined with great main characters and some slick looking animation make this one of Dreamwork's best. 

  

Inception (2010)

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy

IMDB Page

Everything about Inception feels big. The scale, the characters, the music, the action, the visuals... Nolan has definitely has the ability to give a film an "epic" feeling. While being held back in only a few areas, like a plot that is perhaps a little too big, Inception provides for a very entertaining ride. 

The opening to the film is initially very confusing. You jump right in with our main character, Cobb (DiCaprio), transcending different dream levels as he attempts to extract secrets from the mind of Saito (Ken Watanabe), a wealthy Asian business mogul. I was totally lost in this opening, and not in a good way. Soon, all of the characters wake up, and you start to find out what exactly is going on. 

Cobb is part of a corporate mercenary team that specializes in infiltrating other's dreams to steal secrets from their subconscious. The opening scene was a "dry run"; Saito was testing out the team before dropping his hard earned dollars. Not much explanation is given into the past of this team, nor the technology behind it. Its not a huge issue, but I would have liked to have heard more about the mysterious machine that is used to sneak into other's dreams, other than "it was a secret government training project". 

Cobb is also haunted by the memory of his dead wife. She haunts his subconcious, making it increasingly harder to preform his job. He is also wanted by the US government under suspicsion that he had something to do with her death, making it almost impossible to re enter the county to see his children. Saito offers him a deal: Preform an extremely risky operation, called an "inception", which involves implanting an idea in someone's head, rather than stealing one. In exchange, Cobb will be able to enter the US again to see his son and daughter. The majority of the film is taken up by planning the inception. It also explains all of the rules of the dream world, which makes the film's opening scene finally make sense, as well as prepare the viewer for the film's finale. The finale is ingenious, if not a bit too complex; consisting of a dream, within a dream, within a dream. 

Nothing confusing here....

Apart fron the intriging story, everything else about Inception is top notch. The visuals are the best part, allowing for us to see some truly mind bending stuff when the characters enter the dream world. The action is typical Nolan, with plenty of PG-13 rated gun play and car chases. The hard hitting and ominous score by Hans Zimmer has the same feeling, shaking you right to the core during action scenes, and perfectly helping to set the tone for others. Once scene in particular blends action with a true "how did they do that?" moment. A fight between two characters happens in an upscale hotel, as gravity does all kinds of weird things around them. 

Not for those with vertigo. 

Now, onto the bad. I've mentioned a few times already that the plot can get a bit convoluted. You can get lost easily if you miss only a couple of lines of dialog. For example, Cobb and his team encounter armed resistance upon entering someone else's dream. I had no idea who these goons were, or why they were fighting our main characters. On my second viewing of the film, I caught a couple of lines I had missed on my first time through. Apparently, people who fear having their secrets stolen via the dreamworld have trained their subconscious to fight any intruders. It was really easy to miss, so make sure you aren't distracted while you watch. To add onto that, make sure you have the time to sit and watch, as Inception clocks in at a two and a half hour runtime. 

Also, just a pet peeve of mine, an AED (Automatic External Defibrillator) is used in the completely wrong way to revive a character that has died. Yeah, you could say it works because its just a movie, or they were in a dream at the time. I'm not going to subtract anything for this, but it had my inner medicine nerd yelling "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!". 

Bottom Line: 9/10: While it gets caught up a little in a complicated story, Inception pulls through with flying colors. Once you can understand whats happening, the story will pull you and and won't let go. The dream worlds are beautiful, characters are interesting, and theres plenty of bullets and explosions for the action fans. On top of that, one of the most well done ambiguous endings I've ever seen. 

The Fifth Element (1997)

Directed by: Luc Besson

Starring: Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman

IMDB Page

The Fifth Element is one of those movies I have caught bits and pieces of over the years. Given its two hour and some change runtime, I never caught more than half of it when being aired on broadcast television. I just recently sat down and had a chance to view it all in one setting. Now it makes a whole lot more sense, and was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. 

The plot is a bit convoluted, but easier to follow if you are actually watching the film. A "great evil" appears every 5,000 years to wipe out life on earth. The key to stopping the evil is passed down by priests from generation to generation.  Also needed are the five "elements": earth, fire, water, wind, and a fifth; which can be described as "love" or "heart".

Capitan Planet does not have a cameo

An acient race of beings, who are also tasked with stopping the great evil, are halted by mercenaries hired by hired by the corporatist Zorg (Oldman). Enough DNA is recovered from their wrecked ship to recreate one of the beings. The recreation, Leeloo (Jovovich), is a genetically perfect being, also serving as the fifth element. She soon escapes, running into a ex-special forces taxi cab driver, Dallas (Willis). The two team up with the priests (Ian Holm and Charlie Creed-Miles) that have the necessary knowledge to stop the great evil, while fighting Zorg and his goons along the way. It sounds confusing written down, but is not too hard to follow while actually watching.  

The main appeal of this film is its sheer visual brilliance. The future New York City has an amazing, if not over the top, look to it. It almost is more of a bright fantasy look, rather than the cold steel vision of the future that is so popular. This look alone was almost enough to hold my attention throughout the entirety of the film, there is never a dull looking image on screen. The effects are top notch, and hold themselves even 14 years later. There is a perfect blend of CGI and practical effects, both being done extremely well. 

All of the characters are just as colorful, in costume design and personality. (Fun fact: over 900 different costumes were designed for use in the film) The Fifth Element is filled out by an excellent cast. Oldman steals the show as the evil corporatist Zorg. He blends into his role so well, I was shocked to find out it was him in the credits. Willis plays the typical Willis character: The wise cracking badass who smokes too much, all the while tongue firmly planted in cheek. It isn't anything new for him, but he does it well. Jovovich plays the naive acting Leeloo. She is a source of a few of the film's best laughs, and is plenty easy on the eyes. Ian Holm and Charlie Creed-Miles are a delight as the two sometimes bumbling priests. And finally, where the characters get too colorful, is Chris Tucker as the eccentric Rhuby Rhod. The film looses points for this character, who serves no real role and is utterly obnoxious for every scene he is in. I would call him the "Jar Jar Binks" of this movie, until I remembered The Fifth Element was around two years before the Phantom Menace. That makes Jar Jar the Rhuby Rhod of Star Wars. 

Screenwriter: How can we take Chris Tucker, and make him even more annoying? .....Bingo.

Bottom line: 8/10: The Fifth element is wildly entertaining, well worth a watch. Its held back in only a couple places, such as a complicated plot and Chris Tucker. However, the other characters, and the brilliant design of the future world, make this a good one for any fan of the sci-fi genre.

  

Paul (2011)

Directed by: Greg Mottola

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogan

IMDB Page

I was excited for Paul since I first heard Pegg and Frost were doing another film together.  I had a few mixed feelings once I found out that Edgar Wright, who had worked with the two on Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), was not involved with this project. My worries were put to bed upon seeing the film. Paul, while its humor is much more simplistic than Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, provides plenty of laughs and a refreshing story. Take the Lewdness of a Seth Rogan film, garnish it with the sly wit of Pegg and Frost, and there you have Paul.  

Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) are two hardcore nerds from the UK visiting the United States for Comic-Con. While they are in country, they decide to rent an RV to tour all of the UFO hot spots across the American midwest. Along the way, they run into Paul (Seth Rogan), a stereotypical looking grey alien with an odd personality. Paul is on the lam from the government, and needs help to return home. He persuades Clive and Graeme to bring him to where he can be picked up by another UFO. Hilarity ensues. 

Two nerds in heaven

There truly wasn't a dull moment in the pacing of the film. Even in the beginning when the characters were being introduced there were plenty of giggles to be had. Once the main story gets rolling, the jokes don't let up until the end credits roll. The humor is pretty juvenile, consisting mainly of fart and sex jokes. It also takes some serious jabs at religion, and doesn't back down. Those who are religious or offended by such humor might want to avoid this film all together.  While this may bother some, I thought the low brow stuff was particularly well done. There are constant references to nerd and sci-fi culture throughout. Some are perfectly subtle and fit into the dialogue well, others feel a bit forced and awkward. 

The characters and the actors who fill their shoes are superb. Pegg and Frost are at their usual best. I was a bit weary about Seth Rogan playing the alien, but he turned out perfect for the role. Jason Bateman, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Trugilo make a funny team as the government agents trailing Paul. Sigourney Weaver has a small part as the boss of whatever government agency Paul escaped from. And Kristen Wiig plays a devout woman "accidentally" kidnapped by our three main characters.

Bottom Line: 8/10: While not as good as previous Pegg/Frost collaborations, theres still plenty of funny here. The humor is a bit low brow and may be offensive to some. Combined with an interesting story, some exciting action scenes, and great acting; this isn't one to miss.

  

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Shaun of the Dead

Directed by: Edgar Wright

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kate Ashfield

IMDB Page

Shortly after this was released on DVD, all I heard was friends talking about how funny it was. I tried to sit down and watch it for almost two months. Finally, I got a chance to give it a go. I don't want to say I was disappointed initially. I just didn't get what I had expected. I guess I had been expecting an outrageous Airplane! or Naked Gun style comedy. My friends and fellow film nerds urged me to give it another chance. "Its not an American comedy." I remember someone saying, referring the film's country of origin. I took the advice, and I'm glad I did. Shaun of the Dead is one of the most witty and brilliantly written comedies that has been released in the past ten years. 

Starting out, you wouldn't even know this movie contained zombies. (Well, if you ignored the title)  Shaun (Pegg) is a television salesman who hasn't done much with his life. He lives with his slacker roommate, Ed (Frost). Shaun has a girlfriend, but their relationship has become stagnant.  Its the same old thing every day. After failing at a chance to change his routine, and consequently being dumped,  Shaun sets out on a quest to get his girl back. The only thing is, the UK is now over run by the living dead. The film really lives up to its tagline. Shaun of the Dead isn't a zombie move; its a romantic comedy..with zombies. 

Quite a few zombies

The story can start out a bit slow for some in the beginning. There are plenty of interesting characters and funny situations right off, but it might be a bit of a let down if you went in expecting a modern day Romero film. One it hits the half hour mark, however, it'll really take off. The climax of the film is expertly done. It definitely is a throwback to the Romero zombie movie climax: The humans are not killed off by the living dead directly, but are doomed to die because they can't get over their petty disputes and differences. Plus, one of the best uses of a Queen song that I have ever seen. 

There are plenty of laugh out loud moments to be had here, like every good comedy should. But beyond raw laughs is sheer razor sharp wit. You can be watching this movie for your tenth time, and still pick up on subtle little jokes you've missed before. The film constantly makes nods at itself without breaking the fourth wall, which is an amazing feat in itself. For example, Shaun has a red pen leak in his shirt pocket near the beginning of the film. Almost every character from then on points out that "you've got red on you", even as his shirt is covered in copious abouts of blood and gore as the movie goes on.

You've got red on you.

Bottom line: 9/10: A real treat for any fan of comedies and/or zombie films. Any fans of British humor (or humour) shouldn't pass this one over either. Wonderfully written and scarce of any dull moments, this isn't one to miss.

   

Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman

Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Ramon Rodriguez, Cory Hardrict

IMDB Page

Don't go into this one expecting a good plot, stellar dialogue, or standout performances. Luckily, I didn't go in expecting any of that. I got just what I had expected from seeing the trailers: Lots of shouting, bullets and explosions. Lots of explosions. 

Battle: Los Angeles follows a very simple story that we've seen countless times before. Aliens are invading, and its up to a clichéd squad of tough marines to bring down the extraterrestrial baddies. There's not much more to it than that. The explanation for the invasion was almost easy to miss in the quick pace of the film (something to do with water); but that's not what you're here for. Some effort is given to introducing us to the characters and make us care about them. It didn't really work, the characters are pretty bland, and their backstories were just as uninteresting. I couldn't remember any of their names by the film's half way point. It was difficult to feel emotional when marine #3 got shot a bunch of times, or when marines #2, #5, and #7 got blown up in a helecopter. 

Speaking of marines, this movie almost seems like an ad for the US Marine Corps at some points. Except its two hours long and with aliens. It didn't bother me too much, but anyone who has spent 5 minutes in  the actual military would cringe at some of the interactions and portrayal of the marines in general. Its not a bad portrayal, its just.....off.

The acting is surprisingly good at some points. At others, its barley passable. Aaron Eckhart does an amazing job Staff Segregant Nantz, even if there isn't much to his character. The rest of the actors do an OK job, however, none of them give memorable performances. Noel Fisher is good as the squad's inexperienced newbie. Bryce Cass, who plays a youngster that is rescued by the marines, is very impressive given his age. Michelle Rodriguez steps far outside of her comfort zone playing the tougher-than-usual female soldier, this time an air force sergeant.

Michelle Rodriguez in Battle: Los Ang-... wait......

Here we go- Nope, hold on....

Damn it.....

Ok, I think I got it

Lets get down to what Battle: Los Angeles is all about. Action. The only thing it does very well, almost making up for other shortcomings. Once it starts about a half hour into the film, it literally doesn't end until the credits roll. Its fast paced, loud, and brutal. Mixed in with all of the carnage is copious amounts of CGI. It didn't bug me much, the effects held up very well. It did give the film almost a video game type feel, which fits considering the probable target audience.

Michael Bay would be proud. 

 My only gripe is that the camera was extremely jumpy and shaky. I can forgive this in the action scenes, but the cameraman appears to be trembling in quite a few of the slower scenes. Its incredibly distracting to have the camera jumping about when you're trying to watch two guys talking in an office. 

Bottom Line: 6/10: Its nothing substantial, with sub par story and characters. Everything else Battle: Los Angeles does awesomely, earning it back a few points. The perfect mindless all American popcorn action flick. 

Toy Story 3

Directed by: Lee Unkrich

Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty

IMDB Page

When I was younger, I always loved the first two Toy Story films. I owned both of them on VHS when I was eight years old or so. Now, I have a different type of respect for them, and they remain among my favorites. Toy Story 3 gives a very satisfying and heartwarming end to the series. 

The plot of Toy Story 3 is certainly hits much heavier than the previous two films. If you felt yourself getting teary eyed during the first 10 minutes of Up (2009), then thats bound to happen for you at some point in this film. There are some scenes, in particular one involving a trash incinerator at a dump, that may even be a bit too intense for very young viewers. Andy is all grown up, and doesn't play with toys anymore. He is in the process of moving out for college. Woody, Buzz, and the gang find themselves mistakenly being donated to a day care center. The toys think they have finally have a home again, but things at the daycare are not as they seem. 

Its really amazing how much Pixar has advanced technically in the past 10 years since Toy Story 2. The visuals in TS3 are simply stunning. All of the textures look almost photo real. The level of detail in the characters is amazing. There is an amazing sense of scale in the opening scene, as well as some great looking action. It's eye pleasing on an HD screen, but I wish I had seen it in theaters for the 3D version. I expect a 3D Blu-Ray release at some point, and might consider picking it up just to see how Pixar handles 3D.

A still picture doesn't do it justice, the amount of detail put into this guy is amazing. 

For the cast, all of the regulars return to reprise their roles. Tom Hanks and Woody Allen are at their usual best. Micheal Keaton lends his voice to a Ken doll who insists that he's "Not a girl's toy", providing a few of the film's best laughs. Ned Beatty voices Lotso, the stuffed bear in charge of running the day care center our main characters find themselves trapped in.

Final Score: 9/10: Pixar again nails the concept of a true "family film". It has a little for everyone, providing plenty of G rated entertainment for the little ones, while at the same time giving the adults plenty of laughs and an emotionally deep story line to follow. As a 19 year old male who enjoys movies full of shooting, explosions, fast cars and scantily clad women; I have no shame in saying that I love Toy Story.