Alien

From the film’s ominous beginning to its iconic, adrenaline-filled end, Alien is a masterpiece. Perfectly paced, this classic leaves people of all ages gripping their seats in excitement. The Alien creature is fear and terror incarnate, and is an amazing creation. Unlike Predator, the film spends time developing its human characters and pays incredible attention to visual detail. Alien is the finest of director Ridley Scott’s films, and that is saying something.
Once again, I have to recognize the incredible work of the creature designers. Scott’s Alien is one of science fiction’s most terrifying icons, a creation that’s second to none. And no, not even the Predator can really compare. The most memorably original traits of the Alien are probably the second mouth and the acid blood. In the words of a Nostromo crew member, it is “a perfect organism. It’s structural perfection is matched only by its hostility. It is a survivor, unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality.” This spine-tingling monologue is high praise for a fancy movie prop, but upon seeing the murderous Alien onscreen, one really believes it.
In many respects, Alien is quite similar to Predator. Similar enough to spawn a disastrous crossover cash cow known as Alien vs. Predator, but that’s not the point. The elements that set this film apart from its younger, B-grade cousin lie chiefly in the human characters and the special effects. The cast of this film is significantly better developed than in Predator, and doesn’t set up a predictable, Austrian hero. Instead, the seven characters are given chances to act, utilizing lots of interaction, drama and back-story, as well as some occasional humor to keep it all going. This allows you to  care for the humans of the story, and grow to hate the dreaded Alien all the more.
In the realm of special effects, this film really shines. In over thirty years since its release, it hasn’t aged a day. The giant mining vessel in which the movie primarily takes place is tediously and realistically designed, and closely mirrors the actual look and feel of a present-day space shuttle. There are no absurd beeping noises or control panels with big buttons and flashing lights; this is not the starship Enterprise. Rather, it reminds me more of the design of a ship from Star Wars. The intricate sets along with the Alien creature make for a timelessly breathtaking visual ride.
Bearing all of this in mind, it’s hard to believe that Alien could ever have produced a worthy sequel. There is an innate mastery of filmmaking and dramatic exposition in Alien that can seldom be rivaled, particularly in the same franchise. But I digress. This film is an American masterpiece, and deserves ten out of ten stars.

Saw

The tired-out “Saw” series was never very high on my list of movies to see. I was always under the impression that it was gory garbage that relied too heavily on torture porn. Well I finally watched the first film, and was forced to reevaluate my whole standing on the franchise. It may not be the best horror movie out there, but its core concept of sick “games” are truly disturbing and worthy of the genre. The story was interestingly paced, though could have done with fewer silly twists. It’s not a great movie, but “Saw” may be one of the only horror flicks made in years that actually encompassed some form of sophistication and even some small doses of quality.
One of the great things about the first “Saw” film is the cleverly designed “games” that Jigsaw plays with his victims. One of the most famous of these is the situation with the reverse bear trap, where a woman must find a way to unlock a device that will eventually rip her face apart. I was surprised to see that these scenes barely even touched on the torture and goriness, and focused more on the setup and rules of the games. This distinction, I think, was what made this film good, while its sequels got progressively worse. It’s also what classified the film as a “psychological thriller” and not a characteristic horror flick, unlike the other six films in the franchise. No, film creators, three dimensions did not fix this problem at all.
Another cheap gimmick the “Saw” franchise tends to employ is ridiculous twists all throughout. Actually, the first film is no exception in this regard. One of the most famous twists is the knowledge that the Jigsaw killer was actually dying of cancer. The most absurd twist, however, came at the very end of the film. I won’t spoil it, but be assured it’s not exactly life-changing. The film may have suffered for it, but I was still impressed with the majority of “Saw.” There were many flashback scenes, several cuts to the goings-on of Jigsaw, and a subplot of two cops in a race to catch the killer before he struck again. These and the main story of Adam and Lawrence are artfully balanced, and make for an overall better film.
For the most part, “Saw” is still a mediocre movie. The fact that it holds any weight critically is mostly due to comparison with its vastly inferior sequels. The only reason to be interested in this film lies in its original idea of the torture games, an area where the film delivers beautifully. Its storyline is no Stephen King novel, though it at least soars above the level of Stephanie Meyer. For fans of the genre, “Saw” is worth a view. For the rest of us, it may be a movie to avoid. It deserves five out of ten stars.

Superman Returns

When it was first announced that “Superman Returns” was going to be filmed, fans up and down the country grew wild, and the pressure was on for those filmmakers. They had the hopes of ten million Super-fans riding on their shoulders, and they were actually able to produce a decent movie. By no means is this film anywhere near the excellence of the original, but it has finally given Supes a chance to hold his head up. I applaud it for its nostalgic familiarity to the first film, and its decision to be a sequel that blatantly ignores the last two sequels, but its mediocre story and bland cast members somewhat disenchanted me. It’s nothing too special, but this film is definitely a step in the right direction for Supes.

When I first went to the theater to see this film, I was beside myself with excitement, I admit it. My excitement and happiness was greatly increased when the classic opening credits and familiar John Williams theme song from the first film began to play. And all throughout the film, I kept privately squeaking with joy every time a reference to the original film was dropped, such as the iconic night flight with Lois or the incredible return of Marlon Brando as Jor-el, for a brief time. I quickly realized that the film was intending to be a direct sequel to the second film in the franchise, and was choosing to ignore the existence of the last two sequels. This tidbit of information made me happier than ever, as “Superman III” and “IV” were utter garbage. This choice allowed the film to relax a bit, and create a good, unhampered story that could really work well.

The only problem was, they missed their opportunity. The storyline, I’m afraid, was very dull and completely unwanted. After this many years, a large subplot about Superman’s son and Lois Lane getting married to some stiff was not at all what audiences needed from the Man of Steel. Also, the large gap between movies could have allowed for a new, fresh villain from the comic books, but instead they threw Lex Luthor at us yet again, in another desperate bid for land, just like always. I also took issue with the utter blandness of the actors in this film. The worst of the lot was Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, who acted terribly and was not even close to the level of the great Margot Kidder. Also Kevin Spacey as Luthor was fairly lackluster and uninspired. The most important cast member, Superman himself, sure looked the part, but he was not exactly captivating in his acting.

For the most part, “Superman Returns” did alright. It stayed true to the original and was quite entrancing to watch, but suffered from a poor story and insipid acting. This film earns a fresh seven out of ten stars; I only wish it had come sooner and earned more.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace

Just when the heartbroken fans of the “Superman” series thought that things couldn’t possibly get any worse, they were forced to think again. As impossible as it may seem, “Superman IV” managed to be even worse than its antecedents. The production company that made this film was well-known for being ridiculously stingy, and it shows in the special effects. This film was created in a time period where the nuclear weapons threat was still a big deal, and they incorporated that theme far too heavily into the storyline to be taken seriously. And somehow, everyone forgot how to act.

It’s hard to believe that the “Superman” franchise could have possibly allowed a film like “The Quest for Peace” to be made, but when it passed the production torch to Golan-Globus, all bets were off. The Golan-Globus production company was always notorious for being miserly, and the film’s original $36 million budget was cut to $17 million post-production. Therefore, the special effects suffered greatly. There were giant black lines around the characters every time they flew, the fight scenes looked terrible, and the running time was cut to less than an hour and a half. The latter didn’t stop anyone from impatiently checking their watches while watching, though.

One of the things that make “The Quest for Peace” so amazingly pitiful is WMD-smothered storyline. The film was created in a time period where nuclear weapons were the political centerpieces of all governmental actions, and Christopher Reeve strongly advocated to make that the primary theme of “Superman IV.” Well, his heart was in the right place, but his idea was a giant flop. Superman decided to put all of the weapons he found into a giant net floating in space, and then throw the net straight into the sun. This was cheesy enough, but then they went so far as to include a super villain called Nuclear Man. How hard is it really to incorporate some subtlety?

Both Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder stated in an interview that they considered the fourth and final film to be vastly substandard to the others, and Gene Hackman said something similar. Their opinions on the film may actually have affected the effort they put into their roles. All three of them did terrible jobs acting, and it made an already appalling film even worse.

Overall, “Superman IV: The Quest for Peace” was one of the worst films ever made, and it shamed “Superman” forever. The film had a very low budget, which led to seriously low-quality special effects. The nuclear weapons theme was too obvious and way overused. The main actors did terribly this time. This film isn’t worth seeing at all, and it doesn’t earn a single star.

Superman III

It seems clear that the legacy of the “Superman” series is that each sequel is worst than the last. “Superman III” was definitely worse than “Superman II,” and since that one was bad to begin with, then where does that leave Number Three? Well, for starters, there was a director change. This director had some misunderstandings with some of the cast members, and they were actually written out of the film. The special effects were actually a lot worse than last time, which was something of a surprise. All of these things, along with overused slapstick humor and the worst villains of the 80s make for a very unpleasant movie experience.

The new director of “Superman III” wasn’t much of a people person, clearly. He actually managed to throw Lois Lane and Lex Luthor completely out of the story, just because they didn’t get along very well with him. That was a mistake of super-huge proportions, because those two were always brilliant additions to the “Superman” series. Instead, he added a new love interest, Lana Lang (why is it always L.L.?), and a two new villains, a self-aware supercomputer with Kryptonite weaponry, and an evil copy of himself. The new villains were unoriginal and completely ridiculous and the new girlfriend was just a blonde Lois Lane with inferior acting ability and no enthusiasm. These films should be directed by the fanboys.

Once again, the special effects were highly dissatisfying. I know it was the 80s and the effects are not like today, but in “Superman III” they actually got worse. Like when they tried to make Superman freeze a lake, pick it up, and drop it on a flaming building; it looked more fake than Michael Jackson’s nose. In yet another brilliant, strategic move, the genius director decided it would be helpful to stick in bad slapstick comedy to distract the action junkies. Was it funny? No. Did it help at all? Nope. Does bad slapstick comedy have any place in a movie about the Man of Steel? Absolutely and irrevocably no! This film is what modern day fans rightly call a super-fail.

Before I ever actually saw this movie, I’d heard nothing but very negative things about it. I thought that it couldn’t be as bad as what people were saying, and decided to check it out. And I saw this, and realized everything was true. Lois Lane and Lex Luthor were gone, only to be replaced by corny and clichéd characters whom no one could like. The villains were absurd, and the special effects were even worse than last time. Unnecessary and unfunny slapstick humor occupied half of the screen time, in a Superman movie, of all places. “Superman III” is not worth your time, or your money in any case. It gets 1 out of 10 stars. It’s best to just pretend it didn’t happen.

Superman II

Just a few years after the first “Superman” hit, along came the sequel that was bound to happen. “Superman II,” sadly, but expectedly, did not really live up to its predecessor. The effects did not improve from the last one at all, things got a whole lot cornier this time around, and the quality of acting ranged from good to terrible. At least they kept the theme song. It’s one of the only things in the film that didn’t disappoint on some level.

Understandably, special effects back in 1980 were nothing like they are today, but in “Superman II,” Superman still looks like a man suspended by wires who never flies in the direction his arms are pointing. If anything, the effects are worse than in the first movie. “Superman II” boasts its ability to make big explosions, and wreck stuff. This is not saying much when we saw entire planets exploding, and saw Superman flying around the Earth at a gazillion miles per second in the last movie three years prior. So the lack of improved, or at least matched, special effects was pretty disheartening.

“Superman II” was undeniably a corny movie. While turning back time by making the Earth turn clockwise in the last film is also corny, nothing beats the fact that, somehow, his magical ice palace has a machine that can turn him human just when that’s what he wants. Also, I don’t think anyone knew that Superman had the ability to make copies of himself, and to teleport too. But of course, making copies of himself to stop multiple crimes at once is out of the question. So is teleporting himself to the scene of the crime, because I guess that flying is better for the public image. He really only uses those particular powers to show off and get himself laid with Lois.

The Man of Steel himself, Christopher Reeve, delivered a smashing performance as always. With an equally gifted performance came Margot Kidder as Lois Lane. The two had a very believable chemistry, albeit a bit hidden in this sequel by unnecessary slapstick comedy. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor was very disappointing this time around. In the first film, the director established him as a twisted, evil man in a sad scene involving a New York cop. He was still funny, of course, but we all knew what he was capable of. In this film, they dropped all of that and turned him into a obnoxious, flamboyant and silly character that audiences despised. Finally, the villainous triumvirate itself. The three Kryptonian baddies were laughable. They had no acting talent at all, and were horribly monotonous.

“Superman II” failed to live up to the standard set by its predecessor. Much of the acting was disappointing, as were the visual effects. Still, it’s worth seeing once. I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Superman: The Movie

It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s most definitely the best Superman film ever made. Even now, more than thirty years after its debut, Christopher Reeve’s “Superman” has no match. This is the movie that kicked off the introduction to comic book movie genre, and oh, what an impressive genre it is. The whole film is an epic adventure, devoid of any complaints. This is the movie that brought us the best theme song ever written short of “Star Wars,” and some of the best characters ever to hit the big screen. The incredible success of “Superman,” unfortunately, birthed several sequels that singularly destroyed the character for more than thirty years, but he is starting to make a comeback. Of course, no one will forget the stunning first entry to the series, the most superb superhero movie ever.

The film is essentially split into two parts: The first is the origin of Superman, which takes itself very seriously, and goes on for almost half of the movie. We get to see Marlon Brando in one of his best roles, the destruction of the Kryptonian home planet, and all the events leading up to Kalel’s first time wearing the iconic costume of Superman. The second part is his move to the city of Metropolis, where Superman joins the Daily Planet newspaper, humor begins to take prevalence, and the delightful Lex Luthor makes his entrance. Each half is like a separate movie, and both are well done.

No man has ever been as perfect for the Superman role as Christopher Reeve. He embodies the character effortlessly, and switches from the suave, confident Man of Steel to the bumbling, nerdy Clark Kent with remarkable duplicity. It almost makes you believe that no one can tell the difference between the two just because of a pair of glasses. Margot Kidder as Lois Lane and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor were incredible, and they were actually a good match for the talent of Reeve himself. In addition, the characters of Ms. Tessmacher, Otis, Jimmy Olsen, and Perry White were great accents to complement the excellence of the film.

One of the very best parts of “Superman” is the great theme song. Composed by the musical genius John Williams, it is extremely catchy, and set a new musical standard for all movies. The sheer scale of the songs, and the blasting orchestra that sounds amazing whether you have surround sound or broken headphone speakers, is truly remarkable, and sets the tone of the entire film.

The excellent film that is “Superman” gets 10 out of 10 stars, for being everything a critic or viewer could possibly want in a movie. The film screams perfection, and superheroes can never be looked at the same again. This film will make you believe a man can fly.

Predator

It’s quite amazing to me that “Predator” and its burgeoning franchise gained such a cult following. All the popularity, the sequels, the crossovers and graphic novels, the coinable catchphrases… Although it is an important piece of sci fi movie history, the film itself is just not that great. The Predator itself is an eerie, genius creation, and it almost makes the whole movie worth a few views, but the film suffers from little character development and a slow-paced story that never really takes off until the end. It’s mildly entertaining B-movie material, but not much more.

The one feature in “Predator” that distinguishes it from all other sci fi films is, of course, the Predator itself. From its invisibility gizmos to its famous space dreadlocks, the creature has gained considerable repute among the many fans of the genre. And it completely deserves its status. Most of the film is spent building up the first encounter with the alien, which is a very suspenseful period of time. It is quite enthralling, actually, to look through the notorious heat-vision of the Predator, and to hear the iconic clicking sounds it produces when it’s about to make a kill. The final fight at the end when the Predator took off his mask was even more riveting and action-packed. He’s “one ugly motherf***er,” as a wise man once said.

One of the biggest downfalls to “Predator” is its sad lack of character development. One by one, each character gets close to two minutes of solitary screen time before shooting at stuff and getting brutally murdered. Their deaths are pointless, and difficult to care about. The only exceptions to this are Carl Weathers as a mercenary named Dillon and ol’ Arnold Schwarzenegger as a mercenary named Dutch, both of whom play predictable and boring roles. Admittedly these killings do set the suspense, and by the time the terrific finale rolls around the audience is holding its breath, completely captivated. However, that still leaves more than an hour at the beginning of just suspense. Especially to a modern audience, this makes most of the beginning and middle sequences pretty dull. The film also takes no time to explain the origin of the Predator alien, or really what it is doing in a remote jungle hunting mercenaries in the first place. The ending was also very unsatisfying, and left many unanswered questions (such as, what on earth was the point of all this?).

Well, there you have it. An immensely popular franchise with more hype than it knows what to do with, and it all originated from this less-than-average piece of sci fi. The Predator itself may have been worthy, but the story and human characters paid the price for it. “Predator” deserves a solid six out of ten stars.

The Social Network

Never before has a film surprised me as much as this one did. Utter exasperation and disinterest were my initial reactions to the news that a movie about Facebook was being made. I soon, however, realized how very wrong my first impression was, and was reminded once again that I should never judge a book by its cover. Or rather, a movie by its seemingly ridiculous premise. “The Social Network,” or “The Facebook Movie” as it is often called, was an amazing picture, and was an example of modern filmmaking at its finest. It was filled with riveting performances by a skilled cast, and was beautifully written and directed. This is most certainly a drama worth seeing, and will no doubt take a few Oscars home for its trouble.

Part of what made this film so wonderfully mesmeric was the great acting. All of the performances in the film were expertly done, and impressed the heck out of me. Jesse Eisenberg, who recently starred in “Zombieland,” has truly broken out of his shell for this film. He was truly captivating in his performance as Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, and played his odious and hateful character amazingly and in a curiously likeable way. Justin Timberlake has finally proven to me that he can, in fact, act, and he portrayed Sean Parker, the creator of Naptser, marvelously, with zest and charisma. In this film, I was actually most interested in Andrew Garfield’s performance, as he is set to play the new Spider-man in the upcoming 2012 reboot. I was at first quite skeptical of him, but now I’m sure that Spider-man is in good hands. Armie Hammer, through some camera stunts, played both of the Winklevoss twins, and he played them superbly.

The film is filled with outstanding actors, but that isn’t necessarily enough to make a good movie. The winning formula also requires skilled writing and direction, which I am pleased to say it contained in excess. The film was astonishingly well-written by Aaron Sorkin, a screenwriter and playwright well-known for his rapid-fire dialogue and extended monologues. He made the film witty and smart, and gave the actors plenty of opportunities to open up and really express themselves. The film was adeptly directed by David Fincher, the genius who created “Se7en,” and a man who specializes in making dark and stylish thrillers. He certainly pulled through on this one, and he gave the whole picture a polished, high quality look that really stays with you after you leave the theater.

For such an ostensibly terrible idea, a movie about Facebook turned out to be one of the best films of the year. “The Social Network” contained outstanding writing and was brilliantly directed, and had an incredible cast. It deserves ten out of ten stars.

The Wizard of Oz

There isn’t much left that I can say about this film that hasn’t been said millions of times by critics much greater I. The film is a timeless classic, and it will be a part of American culture forever. The famous lines, the enchanting characters, and the amazing songs are well known and well loved by everybody. The renowned story is light-hearted and fanciful, but at the same time is dark and, in fact, rather sinister. I think that is one of the reasons I love it so much, and indeed why everyone does. Undeniably, “The Wizard of Oz” is one of the most famous movies ever made, and it deserves every bit of its fame.

When the film first came out in 1939, it wasn’t very popular at all. In fact, it flopped at the box office, and didn’t win even one Oscar later. Over time, however, through annual screenings of the film on television and rapidly growing popularity, it soon became what it is today, the number one most watched movie of all time and top ten best movie of all time. “Oz” is also the number one most quotable movie of all time. “Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore…” The list goes on and on. You would also be extremely hard-pressed to find someone who didn’t know who the Wicked Witch of the West was, or someone who didn’t love and appreciate them. That goes for the musical side of film, too, i.e. “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”

The film starts off light-heartedly and pleasantly, with Dorothy vying for her aunt’s and uncle’s attention as they go about their morning chores. But then, ominous music begins to sound and the malicious spinster Mrs. Gulch approaches the farm, meaning to take away Dorothy’s dog Toto. A lot of the film is like that, where everything is happy and wonderful and then all of a sudden, things take a turn for the dark and gloomy. But since this is a family film, and the special effects are anything but remotely believable, a lot of the dark nature of the film is hidden. Nevertheless, that threatening, sinister element remains, and it makes for a much more gripping and interesting story.

It is near impossible to find a film at the level of “Oz,” by means of fame and popularity, or by means of sheer quality. The quotes, the characters, and the fantastic songs are constantly referenced and spoofed. The story is joyful and child friendly but is mixed with dark and sinister undertones, in very pleasing way. This film deserves a strong ten out of ten stars, and I only regret that I can’t give it more. “The Wizard of Oz” is one of the greatest of all pop culture icons, and will remain so for a long, long time.

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

Years ago I read a review of “Willy Wonka” that said it was the kind of movie that parents love to drag their kids to and then both of them, kids and parents, get bored. I highly doubt it. I’ve never met a soul who didn’t like this children’s fantasy, kid or adult. Since its release in 1971, it has become seamlessly institutionalized in society, now as famous as such films as “The Wizard of Oz.” It contains that element of warmth and adventure that was missing in 2005’s Tim Burton remake, and actually feels like there is a moral to it. Plus, there could not have been a more perfect actor to play the big man himself than the great Gene Wilder. “Wonka” is a textbook case of what being a true American classic entails.

The film is, of course, based on Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” book. “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” captures the spirit of Dahl’s children’s literature, which mixed typically bright and cheery flights of imaginative fantasy with unexpectedly dark and bizarre undertones. However, there were many places where this film strayed from the original storyline, the most memorable of which being the sort of 60s psychedelia scene in the scary tunnel and the rival candymaker who wanted to steal Wonka’s formulas. Another bonus to this picture is the famed musical side of it. Such numbers as the “Oompa Loompa Song” or “The Candy Man” are excellent and have spawned an endless number of references and spoofs.

“Wonka” is highly reminiscent of “The Wizard of Oz,” though it is not quite at Oz’s level. A child goes on a magical journey filled with laughter, adventure, fantasy and song and learns a valuable lesson along the way. In the film, these elements mesh perfectly to create the ideal family movie, the kind that brings that warm fuzzy feeling inside. There wasn’t even a semblance of that feeling in the remake. There was no clear moral to be derived from it. It was dark and unlovable and just created a nauseous feeling.

The best part of “Willy Wonka” is, well, Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder did a fantastic job portraying the complex character that is he, especially when compared to the anti-social freak with a severe case of arrested development that is Johnny Depp’s version of Wonka. Wilder’s bright blue eyes and wide smile give him the appearance of a pleasant and appealing adult; thus, when his eccentric qualities show through, it becomes much more shocking, and interesting.

“Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” is a fabulous movie with a terrific blend of family film qualities and an amazing actor for Willy Wonka himself, both of which the remake sorely lacks. This is a classic worth owning, and it earns 9 out of 10 stars.

Iron Man 2

How the creators of the “Iron Man” series could have let something so good slip from their fingers like this is beyond my comprehension. But still, it happened. “Iron Man 2” was vastly inferior to its precursor, and it was the biggest disappointment of the summer movie season. It would have been as great as the first film if it had just repeated the techniques that worked so well for it before, instead of trying to cram tons of material into it and leaving quality as an afterthought. What the first film was so careful not to do was blatantly did in the sequel: too many new characters and subplots were added, and so for the entire running length things progressed sluggishly and slowly. “Iron Man 2” was a complete dissatisfaction.

In the last movie there were only four main characters, which made for quality character development and upped their likeability factor. These characters are back with an added six main characters, all without that likeability, and fighting for attention throughout the film. And if you count the Don Cheadle actor change, there are actually seven new characters. Half of these characters are not even necessary, and it slows down the whole film with their nonstop recurrences. And it makes it feel as though this movie only exists to bridge the gap between the first film and the upcoming “Avengers” film, especially after the “Thor” teaser after the end credits.

The story in “Iron Man 2” was also overloaded and confusing. The main plot involved Iron Man struggling to deal with Whiplash, a Russian man with weaponry similar to Tony’s. The many subplots included Tony’s armor slowly killing him, his flawed relationship with his father, his involvement with S.H.I.E.L.D., Black Widow, his difficulties with his rival Justin Hammer, his difficulties with Senator Stern, his alcoholism, his faulty friendship with Rhodey, his position on the Avengers team, and the introduction of Thor. I probably missed a few, as well. This is just overwhelming, and the film is too full of all this garbage to really advance the main “Iron Man” storyline. Therefore, it also increases the feeling that the film only exists to get tons of characters and subplots introduced so that we know who and what they are when they return in future films.

It is impossible to review “Iron Man 2” without mercilessly comparing it to its predecessor, and this is why it receives such criticisms. It overworked new characters and plotlines too much, and made the whole movie seem slow and low-quality. This kept the main storyline from progressing much at all, which was what engendered a dissatisfied feeling when the film finally ended. This film is still worth seeing, but maybe not in theaters. It gets 5 out of 10 stars.

Iron Man

Where do I even begin? “Iron Man” was, bar none, the best movie of ‘08, and it was a heck of a way to kick off the summer of that year. There has never before been a more believable superhero than the one portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man was never a very famous Marvel comics character, but this film made him one. The storyline in the film was also top-notch. And of course, the special effects were fabulous. “Iron Man” is undeniably the best superhero movie ever made, and it set a new standard for all others.

Most superheroes are nice, honorable people with humble beginnings who never sway from being heroic. Therefore, they are boringly predictable. They always come to stop a crime, and always do the right thing. But Robert’s character is not at all this conventional. Not only is he a multi-billionaire, but he is also a flawed and narcissistic man who only takes part in hero work when he feels like it. Furthermore, he has no superpowers, and only becomes amazing when in his suit. He is also the only superhero ever to not have a secret identity. This all makes him a very atypical and interesting character, and is quite refreshing when considering the many other disastrous comic book films that have come out in recent years.

What I think I like the most about the story in “Iron Man” is that it takes things easy. It spends ample time developing his origin story so that it makes sense, while injecting great Downey-style humor into it all. It doesn’t try to introduce every single character from the whole comic book series, but instead focuses on the few it did introduce with great character development. Jeff Bridges made a superb villain, and Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard were exceptional supporting characters. With so many things going right in this film, it seems impossible that any film could ever compete with it.

It would be a real shame if all this movie’s greatness was held back by unrealistic special effects. Thankfully, it’s not a problem. These state-of-the-art CG effects are completely believable, and the flying scenes are out of this world, even without the much-desired 3D involved. The best part, though, is that it isn’t just tons of special effects all movie long. They focus much more on story and character development, which in the end is what makes “Iron Man” so great as a superhero film. “Iron Man” is an instant classic, no doubt about it.

There has never been a superhero flick as perfect as “Iron Man.” It benefits from a great cast and a very unique kind of superhero, as well as a totally comprehensible and interesting plot. The special effects are top-notch, and the film great. It is worth seeing and even worth owning, and it earns 10 out of 10 stars.

How to Train Your Dragon

What are the chances that DreamWorks could make a great movie twice in a row? After the smash hit “Monsters Vs. Aliens” comes a film that bests it in every way imaginable, “How to Train Your Dragon.” Toothless the dragon is definitely one of the all-time greatest animated characters ever. He was adorable and he was the highlight of the entire film. The dragon flying sequences were stunning to watch, particularly with the aid of correctly incorporated 3D effects. All of the vocal cast did a fair job with the voiceovers. “How to Train Your Dragon” is arguably the best DreamWorks animated feature to ever hit theaters, and it exceeded my expectations completely.

The high point of “Train Your Dragon” was definitely the adorable little dragon named Toothless. To the Vikings of the story, all dragons are fierce, murderous creatures that must be slaughtered, with the dreaded Night Fury being the worst of the lot. But this all changes one day when main character Hiccup discovers that the dragon is, in fact, more like a kitten than an evil lizard of death. It’s playful, curious, and extremely cute. The creators did a fantastic job making it lovable even when it never says anything. It encompasses all the natural charm of the uncommunicative robot WALL-E.

One of the best things about this film was the excellent 3D effects. It was not converted to 3D post-production like so many other movies overeager to jump on the 3D bandwagon, but was planned and filmed in 3D from the beginning. This made for a very enjoyable movie experience, particularly in the dragon fight and flight scenes, where the effects are integrated beautifully. It almost felt like we were all flying through the air with them, and narrowly avoiding getting burnt to a crisp. The 3D effects are can’t-miss stuff.

One of the great mysteries of “Train Your Dragon” is why on earth the Vikings all have Scottish accents, but their children all have American ones. We may never know, but at least the oddly intonated voices were good. Main character Hiccup had a pretty nasally, obnoxious voice, but it was convincing nonetheless. The Viking Chief was executed well by none other than Gerard Butler. How strange to see him in a movie that doesn’t suck. The other voice actors also did a nice, believable job. All things considered, this film really shines.

“How to Train Your Dragon” really surpassed my expectations. It brought us Toothless, a new animated character for children of all ages to love, and presented him in stunning 3D effects that really dazzle. The vocal cast was well chosen and talented. When all’s said and done, this film is one of the best animated movies ever made, giving even Pixar a run for its money. It deserves 10 out of 10 stars.

The Blind Side

Without doubt, “The Blind Side” is one of the best dramatic films of ‘09. It tells the real life story of Michael Oher, an oversized pro football player with a troubled childhood. The film focuses on his teenage years, when he gets adopted by an extremely munificent family and they help pave the way for a good college and a career in football. The cast, and especially the Oscar-winning Sandra Bullock, did an incredible job portraying the various characters. While this is based on a true story, it is obvious that lots of parts were left out of it. The entire yarn is so completely sugarcoated it gets pretty banal. But, if you let it, the movie does a very good job of warming the heart.

What really makes “Blind Side” worth its ticket price is its incredible cast. Sandra Bullock is one of Hollywood’s best actresses of all time, and it really shows when you watch her in her more emotional scenes of the film. She won an Oscar for her performance in “The Blind Side,” and she most definitely deserved it. But I won’t shortchange the rest of the cast. Quinton Aaron played Michael Oher, and he pulled off the character nicely. Tim McGraw was a strange, but apparently wise choice to play Bullock’s husband. Jae Head played Bullock’s son, S.J., and he is a very talented little actor. He made his debut in 2008’s “Hancock,” and he will almost certainly do well.

Having a good cast in a film is essential, but what really makes a movie first-rate is having a high-quality story to go with it. By all means, the story in “Blind Side” is top-notch, but it doesn’t seem quite accurate. As this is based on a true story, it would seem that there would be all kinds of real-life themes, and plenty of hardships to go around. This is not the case. I’m sure that there were plenty of events that the film just left out, because I don’t seem to remember the world being happy and perfect just 20-some years ago. All throughout the movie our characters run into problems, but they miraculously find their way out with ease, while simultaneously portraying all humans as wonderful and selfless creatures who love to help people. It’s a sugarcoated world, but if you’re not too cynical about it, you can still sit back and enjoy the great show that is “The Blind Side.”

There is no doubt that “The Blind Side” is one of the greatest movies of the year. All of the dramatis personae involved were very good actors. Especially Sandra Bullock, who completely stole the show. The story seemed unrealistic due to unnecessary sugarcoating of the real events, but it was still a deep, heartwarming ride. “Blind Side” is definitely worth seeing, and even buying. It deserves 9 out of 10 stars. It will restore your faith in humanity, however temporarily.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

There was really no good reason to remake “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” The 1971 version was just fine, thanks, and I think it’s best if we pretend this one doesn’t exist. Normally, I’d say Johnny Depp would be perfect for a role like Willy Wonka, but he gave the character a really weird personality that just didn’t fit the Roald Dahl or the Gene Wilder version at all. Also, the movie didn’t work in the logical sense. Of course, the whole basis for the movie is to create an unrealistic world, but it started to really annoy after awhile. The acting was also pretty bad in this film, with the exception of Charlie himself. “Charlie” fails on too many levels to be decent.

The part of this film that falls the shortest is the way the movie portrays Willy Wonka himself. Johnny Depp is usually the very best actor available for playing the weird and creepy, so I had high hopes for his depiction of the character in this film. But instead of making him a kind but intimidating candymaker trying to teach brats a lesson, they just turned him into an all out freak. In the original, Wonka seemed to walk around dreamily, appearing lost in his own, chocolaty world. Depp’s version is lost in some chocolaty planet. Which makes it all the weirder when famous director of the strange Tim Burton tried to humanize him by placing emphasis on reconnecting with his father. This Wonka doesn’t resemble the one from the original Roald Dahl book or the one from the 70s movie. It is monstrously wrong, and ruins almost the whole movie.

There were also some serious problems with the realisticness in “Charlie.” I was very irritated in this respect by the people in the movie. A little boy shrinks to the size of a bar of soap and his dad is hardly fazed. Young children are slowly picked off by an uncaring, psychotic man and the families continue with their tour of the factory, unconcerned. A flying glass elevator smashes through Charlie’s house and his family is not in the least upset. There seems to be a pattern developing here. All of this happens partially because of the weird way Burton made the movie, and also the terrible acting of the cast. The only good actor was little Charlie Bucket himself. “Charlie” is a substandard film in all aspects.

“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” had potential. It had the perfect director for the job, the perfect Wonka for the job, and it had been long enough to wait on the remake to get people interested to see it. But it ended up being terrible. Wonka was represented in an overly psychotic way, and the actors were terrible and never showed emotion when horrible things happened. “Charlie” is not worth seeing if you’ve seen the original, and it only deserves 4 out of 10 stars.

Clash of the Titans

Disappointment is the only word I would use to describe how I felt exiting the theater. “Clash of the Titans” suffers mainly from the same thing that brought down “Alice in Wonderland.” The 3D effects were awful simply because the movie was transformed into three-dimensional instead of being filmed that way. Also, I was extremely let down by the special effects. All of the best scenes for CG action were given away in the previews. The original story was messed with too much, and ended up not making much sense. This film had potential to show up the 80s original, but instead it totally botched it.

“Clash of the Titans” was originally filmed for 2D, but in post-production it was hastily converted to 3D. As such, the effects looked worse than those old View-Master toys we had as children. They actually dwarfed the visuals. Your eyes feel like they are being pulled out of your head because the visuals look like they have been stretched back into the screen instead of towards you. It is a very unpleasant experience, and not at all worth the extra cash.

In a movie such as “Clash of the Titans” it is absolutely necessary that the special effects be perfect. And they succeeded in that area. The effects were very, very good, all the way through. In the previews, we saw main character Perseus battling various evil creatures. And that was about all that happened in the movie. In other words, all of the good action scenes were spoiled in the previews, which took all of the fun out watching them. “Oh yeah, I remember that, I saw it in the trailer…” was all I was thinking throughout the two hour running time. You could get the gist of the entire movie without ever having to pay money to see it.

This film is, of course, a remake of the 1981 “Clash of the Titans.” In the original, the hero Perseus killed monsters and traveled to the Underworld all to save his one true love from Hades’s wrath. In this version, he does all these things because he’s ticked off at Hades for killing his family and because he has daddy issues with Zeus. Not only is this identical to the storyline of February’s “Lightning Thief,” but it also totally changes the essence of the film, in a bad way. At least in the original, Perseus had a good reason for risking his life over and over again for the girl. In this film, it just doesn’t add up.

Overall, “Clash of the Titans” was just a bad remake of the original film. It’s best special effects were all shown in the theatrical trailer, and they were worsened by cheap, headache-inducing 3D effects. The story was screwed around with, and the end result was terrible. This film isn’t worth seeing in theaters, and especially not in 3D. It gets 4 out of 10 stars. You’ll get what you want in the original.

I, Robot

This movie is definitely a hard one to review. I’m still trying to decide if I liked it or not. “I, Robot” is just an average, summer action flick. The title comes from Isaac Asimov’s famous short stories of the same name. This is just about the only thing they have in common. Will Smith, of course, added plenty of appeal, but his talent was dumbed down with stupid actions sequences and too many one-liners. One of the best actors was a robot. The CG effects look okay, if you pretend it’s 2004. If you’re looking for proof that Hollywood is completely out of ideas, then look no further.

This film takes place in 2035, in Manhattan, where robots are part of everyone’s lives. They take the butler role in middle to upper class homes, and all of the menial jobs that humans don’t want, such as the janitor or lumberjack. The biggest issue in “I, Robot” is how Will Smith suspects all these robots of violence towards humans and eventual rebellion. In the original Isaac Asimov short stories, this instance never once came up. The idea of robots breaking their programmed laws was unthinkable to him. While the movie shares the title, and a few character names, everything else was just a completely different story, and didn’t need to shame Asimov’s work with its pointless action and its juvenile mystery.

Most of the box office return in “I, Robot,” of course, came from the people’s love of Will Smith. A great actor like him deserved better. Most of the movie’s running time, he was either spamming bad jokes or performing stupid action stunts like jumping off of high-speed motorcycles while precision-firing pistols at evil robots. A much better performance came from Bridget Moynahan, a previously unknown actress who performed her stiff, awkward role with perfection. Another great performance came from a robot, of all things. It was only a voice-over, but it contained more emotion than Smith’s character could ever have encompassed.

The special effects in this movie were not all that wonderful. When it first came out in 2004, I thought the same thing. Whichever year you choose, the CGI was sub par. The robots all looked pretty fake, and since that was what we saw the majority of the screen time, then that made the whole shebang kind of lame.

“I, Robot” was not the greatest summer flick I’ve ever seen. It bared only the slightest resemblance to Isaac Asimov’s short stories, Will Smith didn’t get a chance to show off his skills, and the special effects were not very good. It is worth seeing, once, but I wouldn’t waste money buying it. I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Alice in Wonderland

Whenever Tim Burton directs a film, you can almost always count on it to be very weird, but very good. And nine times out of ten, you can expect to see Johnny Depp. Well, “Alice in Wonderland” was, sadly, not all that great. It reminded me of the “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” remake a few years ago: full of visual treats, but the heart and the mind are left wanting. The main character Alice failed to deliver a worthy performance at all. Moreover, the 3D effects were more annoying than helpful. “Alice” is average.

Sure, Burton knows how to please us with his eye-candy landscapes and his fabulously crafted creatures of Wonderland, but he spent too little time explaining the story. All throughout the film, I found myself wondering about things that just didn’t make sense. For instance, if the Red Queen is so mean to all of her subjects, including to her military force, why wasn’t she overthrown ages ago? I’m not saying the film needs lengthy explanations for why everything is as it is, but for a 3D movie, “Alice” had a very one-dimensional feel.

Another problem with “Alice” was that there was hardly any character development at all. Whenever a key character was in danger, it was very hard to care. When Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum get captured, the audience stifles a yawn. When Alice herself is in danger of death, we couldn’t care less. Besides the fact no one ever kills the title character in a movie (except for “Old Yeller” and “Romeo and Juliet”), Alice also happened to be an awful actress. She was the only character who did a terrible job, and she happened to be the main one. Nice casting, Burton. At least Johnny Depp was there to keep us going. He was the only actor who was remotely interesting.

Another missed opportunity in this movie was in the 3D special effects. According to many movie-news websites on the Internet, “Alice” was not actually intended to be a 3D film. Therefore, it was not shot in 3D. They just hired some people to transform it that way when the shooting was complete. The quality of the 3D effects was much lower because of their hasty transition. More than anything it ended up being distracting, and isn’t worth the extra cash.

“Alice in Wonderland” was not the masterpiece it could have been. The story had many holes in it, there wasn’t good character development, and Alice herself was a bad actress. The 3D effects were more distracting than interesting, but the basic special effects were still great. Johnny Depp’s presence added appeal, but otherwise the film suffered. I give it 5 out of 10 stars. Stick to the Disney cartoon.

Coraline

For certain, “Coraline” was the weirdest movie of ‘09. It was directed by the underappreciated Henry Selick, also the director of “A Nightmare Before Christmas.” The stop-motion world in which the story takes place was strangely grotesque, as were the characters. However, the stop-motion animation, which hasn’t been applied successfully in quite some time, was nearly flawless, and the whole movie was intriguing. It leaves covetous children with a solemn message: Be careful what you wish for.

Fed up with her boring home life, Coraline wanders through a secret door that takes her to a new dimension where her parents are tons of fun, everything is perfect, and everyone’s eyes have buttons sewed into them. She soon finds out, though, that this world is not so wonderful as it seems. As the true evil of the place reveals itself, Coraline begins to realize the grave danger she’s put herself in, and must get back home before it’s too late.

Like the new “Wild Things” film, “Coraline” may not be for young kids. This time, however, it is not because of deep psychological themes, but because of the genuine creepiness of everything. The people in the movie were anything but anatomically correct. Some had twig-like limbs, some had heads bigger than their entire bodies, and everyone looked oddly deformed and misshapen. Creepy music played on and off throughout the film. The buttons covering the other peoples’ eyes were also pretty freaky, especially when they wanted to put them on Coraline herself. And, the list goes on. Add it all together, and you get a movie that no six year-old should watch.

The visual effects of the “Coraline” world were very, very impressive. Certain effects, such as water rippling, or a ribbon falling through the air seemed to have been stuck in just to show the world how skilled the various animators are. And they are obviously very skilled. The animation was smooth and slick, like hair greased with Crisco. There were a few close-up shots that, from time to time, looked a little fake, but mostly the stop-motion effects were a match for modern computer animation.

I don’t really know what to make of “Coraline.” It’s such a weird, out-there movie that I can’t tell if I really enjoyed it or not. I suppose I did, and I think it’s worth checking out. It earns 7 out of 10 stars, for proving that stop-motion animation is nowhere near the end of its popularity, and for giving audiences an intriguing story with an ominous moral, but maybe going a little overboard with the creepiness, and making it a bit too scary for the younger kids.