The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin is a rousing adventure film in the same vein as Indiana Jones, but even more playful and fun. It follows the titular character Tintin (Bell) and his dog Snowy as they investigate clues on a transcontinental journey involving pirates and shipwrecks and hidden treasure. The plotline itself is not particularly groundbreaking or inventive, but it serves the movie well and pushes the story forward at a rapid pace. What really makes this movie such a treasure to watch is its charming characters. Their innocent naivete combined with their clever puzzle-solving and thirst for answers give them unending sympathy no matter what mistakes they make. I can see why the comics were so popular.

The motion capture is a little bit of a double-edged sword. It places the film's characters directly in the uncanny valley, which may put off a lot of viewers. However, it enables Spielberg to take the chase and action scenes to stunning new heights, to truly thrill and excite. It delights and rewards those able to suspend their disbelief. And delighted I was. Just thinking about this movie puts a smile on my face. It was a pleasure to watch and I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0983193/

No Strings Attached (2011)

2/5

No Strings Attached is a "romantic comedy" about two friends attempting to be friends with benefits (or actually friends with only one benefit, namely sexual intercourse). I put romantic comedy in quotes because you would be hard-pressed to find any romance in this film and the comedic elements fall flat about as frequently as they succeed. Natalie Portman plays a weird girl who is uncomfortable with intimacy; throughout the entire film we never get a sense of why she is the way she is. Ashton Kutcher plays the same character he has played for the past 10 years in romantic comedies, and there was nothing new or unique about it the first time we saw it. As for the plot, it progresses predictably into disaster when one party wants more than just sex. Whatever will they do.

Movies like No Strings Attached really frustrate me. It's not the quality of the movie that I find irritating, but the fact that it has so much potential that it chooses to throw away on cheap jokes and superficial meaning. Natalie Portman is incredible in this movie; she gives her character as much depth and warmth as possible, but the character is just written so shallowly that her talent is wasted. Half of the jokes are hilarious, but the other half you could practically hear crickets chirp in the theater. It was painful how bad they were and I actually felt embarrassed for the movie. The relationship between the two main characters is absent until the ending (maybe I'm just being naive, but I thought you had to be friends before you could be friends with benefits). The movie itself is okay, and there are plenty of laughs (more than any Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller comedy that I've seen), but it just feels like a half a movie. I can't recommend it in good conscience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411238/

Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)

3/5

I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.

Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.

(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/

Edison Force (2005)

1/5

"Sometimes the most important questions are the ones you decide not to ask." Like why is the elite tactical squad full of insane crack addicts? Why is every single member corrupt? Why are they allowed to kill people on a whim? And on these flights of whimsy, why do they leave living witnesses? I guess you probably wouldn't ask important questions if you were retarded, which is exactly what this movie is. Maybe it's telling us not to question the gaping plot holes or Justin Timberlake's heinous "acting," but looking that deep into it is giving the movie too much credit. Besides everything (characters, plot, and plot holes) being rehashed from all the bad crime movies and none of the good ones, it is clearly set in another dimension. One in which things don't make sense. Do not watch this movie. It is not so bad that it is good; it is so bad that it is worse than the good that's below bad.

By far, this is the worst movie I have even been close to considering watching this entire year. Perhaps my entire life. The only saving grace was the one scene with Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman chit-chatting. I think they were just ad-libbing though.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389957/

Glory (1989)

3/5

I saw this yesterday on my quest to see the IMDb top 250, which is perhaps my most foolish undertaking (not because of the length, but because of the abundance of terrible movies). It scored very high on IMDb and I was excited because I liked Edward Zwick's most recent directorial effort (The Last Samurai). Unfortunately, I did not find this film particularly commendable. Maybe I just hate Civil War movies (I don't like the parts of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly where it uses the Civil War as a backdrop). Something about the acting just didn't feel right to me. I never thought the characters were real; they were just actors playing those roles. And what were we supposed to feel about Matthew Broderick's character? The first half of the movie he treats his men like dirt and the second half they suddenly have an incredible rapport. What changed about him that I missed? Cary Elwes' character was overall pretty worthless (though I liked his acting--I thought it was the best in the movie). I just never felt the emotional impact in this film that I was supposed to feel.

Now don't get me wrong; it's not a bad movie. It's just not anything to talk about. I don't see how it could be anyone's favorite movie. There's nothing atrocious about the directing and cinematography; the action scenes weren't bad. But it's not really an action movie, is it? I was disappointed when I found out that none of the characters were real except Broderick's. I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie unless you are a fan of the Civil War and not a fan of history (although how those two could coexist is perplexing).

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0097441/