The Artist (2011)

Rating: 90%
Well guys, last week I finally saw this movie for myself. I was lucky enough that they picked a random time right before they declared the nominees for the Oscars to all of the sudden start playing the movie at the Hollywood Theater. So without further ado, here's my review of the one movie every movie geek such as ourselves has heard and been talking about for quite some time: The Artist.

Plot: The films starts out in 1927 where we are introduced to George Valentin who is a famous silent movie star that is attending the premiere to his latest film. Afterwords outside the theater, a fan named Peppy Miller accidentally bumps right in front of Valentin while he's taking pictures for the newspapers where he decided to make a show out of it and allow her to join him. Later, Miller auditions as a dancer for Valentin's next film where he gives her advise on how to succeed. Which leads Miller to slowly but surly makes her a star.

Okay, let's get one thing straight: say what you will about this movie being used just to get an easy Best Picture Oscar (which I have everyone's back on) But for what it's worth, it's a very nice film at the least. The comedy was cute (especially with the dog (duh)), the acting was well done, it was a nice touch to set this film on full screen like in those days. Now obviously the story is not the most original for our time but I think we can accept that. Because all around everything was just to - in a sense - just relive movies of that time. Is it good enough to deserve a Best Picture win? eh, I would like to say that it's one of the strongest of the bunch of this year (as far as I know. I have yet to see Midnight in Paris and The Help) But personally, I would prefer more if it was Hugo that wins. Cause as good of a film as this is, I'm not comfortable with the idea of this movie winning just because it's pressing the right buttons for the Academy, any more than I'm comfortable with the idea that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close got nominated and Ides of March and Girl with Dragon Tattoo didn't.

Actors/Characters:
Jean Dujardin/George Valentin: While his character was not terribly original, it was still very entertaining. But like the film itself, I don't think he did enough worthy of winning an oscar for his performance.
Berenice Bejo/Peppy Miller: She was a cute character. Again, not very original from the story or Dujardin's character, but she still brought out a very well done performance.

Music: The music was enjoyable. It was mostly nice just because of how it played its part in setting the movie to look like a movie from way back then.

Editing: My one issue with the editing was how earlier in the film they were showing Valentin's latest film and the audience while at it. It was a very good idea, I'm just saying that they did it a little longer than they should. Other than that, the editing was very good.

And that's my review for The Artist. It's a very entertaining film, but in my opinion, it's not enought o win best picture.    

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)

Rating: 90%
FINALLY!!!! I've been trying to see this film for months! I mean it got really good reviews and I even was told some story about how it was made. Apparently, what happens was that after the writer wrote the script, he gave it to some produces to try to make it a film. A month later he asks what's the status on his script only to find out that the film has been already casted, shot, and was in post-production. Or so the story goes. With all that said, it somewhat comes to little surprise that a couple weeks ago I couldn't take it anymore so I rented the film on Blue-Ray online at Blockbuster and finally saw the darn thing. And boy am I happy that I have.

Plot: Cal Weaver, a man in his forties finds out that his wife wants a divorce and that she has been sleeping with a man from her work. So he moves to an apartment and starts to hang out at this bar where a womanizer named Jacob Palmer helps him try to pick up woman. Jacob also has his eye on a woman named Hanna who is going to a law school and is hoping for things to go far with her relationship with her boyfriend. Meanwhile, Cal's 13 year old son, Robbie is in love with his 17 year old babysitter Jessica and continues to confess his love even though it makes her uncomfortable.

Now I'm just going to say it loud and proud. I. Love. This. Movie. The story keeps you interested all the way, the jokes are just awesome, and I especially love the subtext to the film. I mean  *WARNING, SPOILER* you had the intro with all the shots of just the feet of all these couples and then it gets to Cal and Emily's feet to introduce the situation with their relationship. Then you have Robbie pulling up his chair to go higher when he's talking to David and then he puts the picture of his parents back up. I will say that it has it's little cliches and some of the things Robbie and Jessica are a little far sexual content wise, but there's very little of it.


Actors/Characters:
Steve Carell/Cal Weaver: Now at first, I didn't really like Carell in this movie at all. When he started going to that bar, he was just his old, Michael Scoot self. Extremely painful moments and all. But after he starts hitting women, he's a different character and you know what, I loved that character. He did a very good job with being Cal Weaver.
Ryan Gosling/Jacob Palmer: He did a very good job too. Personally I really loved his scene where he's just talking and doing all this stuff with Hannah. I mean to me that made his thoughts about her very believable.
Emma Stone/Hannah Weaver: Oh man I really like this actress. I mentioned how much I enjoyed her before in Easy A, and now this. She did a spectacular job and my expectations are just as high as they were after Easy A with he being Gwen Stacy in The Amazing Spider-Man.
Jonah Bobo/Robbie Weaver: I really liked his character. He may have been a little weird at times but I thought he was fairly original.

Music: I thought the music was very enjoyable.

Editing: I enjoyed the editing. The one problem I had was that they included a shot of Jacob eating cereal when it was raining after the parent-teacher conference. That just didn't make any sense. But it was still good all around.

And that's my review for Crazy, Stupid, Love. I an extremely enjoyable movie and I for one love it to death.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Rating: 70%
Well everyone tomorrow, I'll finally see The Artist and find out what's all the hullabaloo about that film. But while I wait for that day to arrive, I decided to settle the matter once and for all to finally see another film. A film that a man has greedily used to rob Best Picture from one of the most spectacular films ever known to man. An evil event that has made this film winning Best Picture THE biggest Oscar screw up ever. It goes without really needing this kind of intro, that I am talking about Shakespeare In Love.

Plot: William Shakespeare is currently writing a comedy called Romeo and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter for Philip Henslowe who owns The Rose Theater. But when his lover cheats on him, he burns the script and starts to write the tragedy Romeo and Juliet. While he doesn't complete the script yet, he puts up auditions for Romeo where the only actor that stands out is a mysterious boy named Thomas Kent. Shakespeare eventually finds out that he's actually Viola de Lessep, a daughter of a wealthy merchant who dreams of acting which leads them to fall in love.

Okay, before is start injecting my fair share of venom on this movie I will say that it is a fairly good film at the least. The idea is cute, the story concerning how he writes the play is nice, and some of the acting was very well done. And I did find it a nice touch how they were saying lines from some of Shakesphere's plays, even some things somewhat similar to Romeo and Juliet in particular. But it's not super original. In fact it's really just a prequel for Titanic. I mean the girl is rich, the guy is poor, the rich guy trying to get the girl tries to get rid of the poor guy, really it's just Titanic with way more nudity and sexual content. Not to mention cross dressing. Now before I get to Actors/Characters, I better get on with giving this movie my venom * clears throat* Best Picture? That seriously won Best Picture? They SERIOUSLY GAVE THIS BEST PICTURE OVER ONE OF THE MOST SPECTACULAR MOVIES OF OUR TIME BY MAKING PEOPLE THINK PRIVATE RYAN'S NOT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!?!?!?! YOU FRICKING IDIOTS!!!!!!!! THEY LET HIM GET AWAY WITH LYING TO THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR AN OSCAR!!!!!! THOSE DASTARDS!!!!! FIRST I WITNESS RANDY NEWMAN WITH "WE BELONG TOGETHER" AND SOCIAL NETWORK WITH EDITING, NOW I WITNESS THAT THEY SERIOUSLY CHOSE THAT OVER PRIVATE RYAN!!!!! YOU MONSTERS!!!!! YOU IDIOTS!!! YOU IMBECILES!!!!! HOW DO YOU GUYS LIVE WITH YOURSELVES!?!?!?!!? *take a deep breath* *clears throat* If necessarily, I apologize for that outburst.

Acting/Characters:
Joseph Fiennes/William Shakespeare: I thought he did a good job. I thought it was good how he was fairly focused on his work at least with giving people and answer like "It's all in here." when they're talking about the script.
Gwyneth Paltrow/ Viola de Lessep: SHe did a good job with her acting, but there's no way she deserved to win best actress. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen the other nominees, but considering what I've heard about this film before I watched it, I think it's best to assume everyone's right it was a screw up as well for Paltrow to win.
Judi Dench/Queen Elizabeth: She was awesome. She just did a brilliant job portraying this character to the point where I think you should see this film just for her alone at the least. She just gives this character that's clever and strict that all around showed that she had it coming with Best supporting actress.

Music: The music was nice. The main score did have a nice romantic tune to it.

Editing: The editing was good.

And that's my review for Shakespeare In Love. It is a very nice enjoyable film, but like everyone else, I draw the line in beyond disbelief with it winning Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan.   

Sucker Punch (2011)

Rating: 30%
Well about a year ago, I tried to see this movie in theaters. However, I was a little concerned with the things I thought I was going to see in this film so I went to see Rango instead.

Plot: A girl only known as BabyDoll is sent to an institution by her sexually abusive stepfather after he blames her for the death of her younger sister. Her stepfather bribes the doctor of the institution to forging the signature of the asylum's psychiatrist to have BabyDoll lobotomized. As this happens to BabyDoll she begins to imagine the asylum as brothel where the doctor is envisioned as a mobster. From there the story is about her trying to escape the brothel with some of the other girls through her dance to all the men of the brothel where she imagines her and the girls in these fantasy worlds.

This may be a little more enjoyable than Rango (OH MY FREAKING GOSH MORE ENJOYABLE!!!) But it's still not that good. Some of the things are a little hard to understand right away, the action is not all that good, all around it wasn't very well put together. When I heard about this movie, I thought it was going to be a movie with a decent plot, and some really awesome action in some fantasy worlds. In a way I got that, but at the same time, not enough. The story did turn out to be decent, and the acting was okay, but...I don't know. It just did not deliver in being as big as they said it was going to be. In my opinion, the concept of the film was fine, but I would've liked to have seen more of the fantasy worlds BabyDoll imagines when she dances - maybe even as a separate film.

Acting/Characters
Emily Browning/BabyDoll: She did an okay job, but my one really big problem was that when it came to action, she didn't seem to have done a good job with the choreography. With killing the giant samurai with the stan minigun just didn't look very believable. She got better later on but still.
Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone/Sweat Pea and Rocket: I thought they were alright. They did a decent job with showing the relationship between the two sisters.

Music: I had mixed feelings about the music. None of it really comes to mind, but in general, some of it worked, some of it didn't.

Editing: Eh, same thing as the music. It had it's good and bad points.

And that's my review for Sucker Punch. I can't really describe why it's bad other than it just wasn't as big as it really should've been.

Angels and Demons (2009)

Rating: 50%
Well I've been trying to get myself to write my review to this movie for a while but have never really succeeded until now. Now with this film, I saw most of it when I went to my grandparents' house last Labor Day and they told me how much the book was better so they let be borrow their copy of the book where afterwords I fully saw this. So here's my review for Angels & Demons.

Plot: Shortly after the an organization for nuclear research called CERN creates three containers of antimatter, an assassin kills a member and cuts his eye out to use it to steal one of the antimatters. Shortly afterwords, the Pope dies which leaves the papal conclave of Rome to vote for a new one. But then the preferiti (the four cardinals that are viewed to most likely to be the next pope) become captured supposedly by the Illuminati who intend to kill the preferiti one by one for each hour the night they declare who is going to be the pope and afterwords deactivate the container for the anitmatter thus destroying the Vatican. So the church relies on Professor Robert Langdon to investigate and use his knowledge to try to rescue the preferiti and spot the antimatter from destroying the city.

This is just and okay film. The book is so much better as I'm sure you have heard. But even then, it's a whole lot more interesting than the Da Vinci Code. The concept between church and science is just way more interesting. The book has more things explained and is even more suspensful. But it does make sense that they leave out a fair amount of stuff in the movie. But my biggest issue is how they changed or got rid of some of the side characters. For example, the Camerlengo is named Carlo Ventresca not Patrick McKenna. The commander's name is Olivetti, not Richter. And I think the biggest problem is that they completely got rid of the character Maximilian Kohler who is the director of CERN. Really having him as one of the good guys (roughly) works in the book because it kinda balances out with the fact that some of the people trying to stop the Illuminati were scientists as far as side characters go (so I mean outside of Vittoria.) But in this case, all the side characters were just members of the church or are trying to protect the church. So in a way - at least to me - this movie made all the good side characters just the church guys. I mean I don't have a problem with that, but personally I think the idea that there were good side characters from the church AND the scientist made it a little more complex.

Actors/Characters:
Tom Hanks/Robert Langdon: Hanks did an okay job. He did better than Da Vinci Code for sure. I would've liked to have given him more to do from the book.
Ayelet Zurer/Vittoria Vetra: She wasn't very good. The real problem was that like Hanks, they didn't give her enough from what's in the book. Langdon and Vetra actually start having a spark with each other in the book and they didn't really have that in this film. So in a way she was really just there.
Ewan McGregor/Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: *WARNING THIS IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE FILM ONLY* All I want to say is that it's a surprise that we actually have McGregor as a villain. Maybe he's done that before, and I know he's going to be one in that one action film coming up, but I just want to say that I was surprised to see that when I saw this film.

Music: It was nice. I did enjoy the exciting song with the chorus, I don't know which part exactly but yeah.

Editing: I thought it was okay. nothing much.

And that's my review for Angels and Demons. While they couldn't have done everything from the book, it doesn't make the movie any less good that they changed a few things from side characters to the relationship between Langdon and Vetra.

Casablanca (1942)

Rating: 100%
During the conclusion for my review for Lawrence of Arabia, I said that shortly after finishing my Disney Marathon I would start focusing on many other films - particularly best picture winners and nominees. And I stand by what I said starting with one movie that I've failed to see for a very long time. One that I had finally saw only two days before finishing the marathon. One of the big ones. one of the top guns. The movie that has been said to be one of the most romantic film, and it's characters, dialogue, and music to be very iconic. It goes without saying that I am of coarse talking about the Best Picture winner of 1943: Casablanca.


Plot:  Rick Blaine is an American currently residing in Casablanca in his night club "Rick's Cafe American". But one day, a dear old flame from Paris named Ilsa Lund comes back trying to explain to him why she didn't join him when he was leaving for Casablanca when the Nazi's invade Paris. 

I know that's very brief, but I'm sure it works considering we don't want me telling too much for those of you who still haven't seen this film. But anyway, I have to admit this is a very good film. I enjoyed some of the subtext that there was to this movie, the story was very well done, and I"m glad I understand where some of the dialogue and stuff that have been spoofed in other films have originated from. I don't really find it as romantic as some people claim it is but my dad did say that it most likely is that case considering it's time and frankly I'm good with that opinion. I mean I won't deny that it is a romantic film that's very well done, but I don't think it's the most romantic movie I've seen. But still, it's an enjoyable film.


Actors/Characters:
Humphrey Bogart/Rick Blaine: He did an excellent job. I do admit that when it comes to the very end of the movie, I can clearly see why he's # 4 on the AFI list of top heroes.
Ingrid Bargman/Ilsa Lund: She did a very good job. too. Nuthun much else to say about that.

Music: The music was very enjoyable.

Editing: I liked the editing.

And that's my review for Casablanca. I hope it's not too long that I find the time to watch this film again.

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)

Rating: 80%
Well everyone, I've made it. I wish I finished it than sooner than the night before I go back to college for the beginning of the new semester, but it's done. So behold; Disney review #51 and my 200th review: Atlantis: The Lost Empire.

Plot: Thousands of years ago, there was a mighty island called Atlantis that was suddenly struck by great wave and sank beneath the sea. The movie then moves to the year 1914 in Washington D.C. where a cartographer and linguist who works in the boiler room of the Smithsonian Institution keeps attempting the board to give him funding to start an expedition to find the Shepard's Journal - the guide to Atlantis - and to use it to find it. The board shuts him down believing that he's only chasing fairly tales. But later that night, Milo finds a woman named Helga Sinclair who takes him to her employer named Preston Whitmore. Whitmore turns out to be a friend of Milo's grandfather who was also searching for Atlantis before he died, and gives him a package that was from his grandfather that is revealed to be the Shepard's Journal. Whitmore reveals that he had already funded an expedition to find the journal with Milo's grandfather and he asks Milo to me the translator for the journal as he starts the expedition to find Atlantis.

Now I actually loved this movie to death as a kid. I might've loved it a little too much I have to admit. Watching it again, it's definitely not as good as I thought it was. It's still good, but I do see one or two points on how it's bad. Some of the dialogue doesn't make much sense, the general concept of the story is not very original, there were a couple of plot holes and it's most likely a little too violent to actually be a Disney animated film. But I still like it. I mean the action is cool, some of the stuff about Atlantis and it's culture is clever, and I though the Ulysses submarine and the Leviathan both just looked really sweet. And you can at least like it for some of the stars in the movie with Michael J. Fox, Leonard Nimoy and this is actually one of the very last films of Jim Varney.    

Characters:
Milo Thatch: Milo was always my favorite. I admit growing up that his dialogue goes a little to fast so you can't always tell what he's doing. But I love him anyway because how the turns out to be the total hero of the day.
Lyle Rorke: Now he was not the most original villain ever, but you have to admit *WARNING SPOILER* that his death in the movie was pretty cool.
Kida: Well she definitely wasn't the most attractive of the Disney Princesses, but she definitely not the worst. I mean she was smart, skilled and did have a thirst for knowledge. I don't see at least that much character development in Aurora or Snow White.
Packer, Vinny, Mole, Sweet and Audrey (the side characters): They're pretty good side characters. some of them are pretty funny and even then, you have to enjoy the scene where they're all talking about their different lives.


Music: The musical score to me is very good. as far as other songs...well there's that one song that they play during the end credits. I finally decided to listen to that when the movie was over and...it's okay. Nothing original but it was alright.


And that's my review for Atlantis: The Lost Empire. It's not the best movie, but I love it anyway. And so that's my 200th review and that concludes my marathon of reviewing all 51 theatrical animated Disney films. I'm glad to have finally done it and I hope I can put my full knowledge of Disney to good use for whatever future movies they will make. Until then, here's to another 100 reviews, and I hope to make another post containing the links to all of the 51 reviews of Disney. Thank you for reading.