The film is visually perfect. I couldn’t tell what was puppetry, and what was CG. The world of the wild things is beautiful, and captures the essence of the children’s book illustrations. It is not very colorful, but wonderful to look at for young and old.

The film was both confusing and boring. It was too much like the book. When you adapt any media into another, things must be changed. Especially when you have such a short single-minded book. Yes, they added a backstory, but that was all. The movie was just an expression of childhood anger, much like the book. Once Max got to the land of the wild things the plot ceased to move forward and just became a series of angry expression by Max and the wild things. Too much like the book. The filmmakers appear to use the book theme as an excuse for not having a good story.

The synopsis of the expanded story could’ve been pulled right from H.R. Pufnstuf. Hopefully, Sid and Marty Krofft will see this movie and use it to help determine the direction an Pufnstuf feature film should take. Honestly, the 1970s camp film “Pufnstuf” was a much better movie.

I give “Where The Wild Things Are” a didn’t really need to see it.

The real life friendship of Vaughn, Bateman, Favreau and Billingsley (director) really pays off on screen. Their interaction is seamless. Yes, the core of their characters is the same as in previous movies, but it’s so good that your not distracted at all. They are all just so entertaining to watch.

I am very glad to see Kristen Bell playing mature roles. She was somewhat typecast with her excellent portrayal as Veronica Mars, but between Sarah Marshall and Retreat she has now established herself as a ‘adult’. She was the perfect choice to play opposite Bateman. I was pleasantly surprised by Malin Akerman. I’ve never been a huge fan of hers before, but she was great in this movie. She is on her way to becoming another Leslie Mann.

As with The Break-Up, writers Vaughn and Favreau bring real feelings and issues to the screen. Every married couple can find a way to relate to at least one of the couples in this movie. What was missing that The Break-Up had was pulling you in so far that you began to feel uncomfortable watching. Retreat could have accomplished this during the montage of arguments between the couples. They started to, but never went all the way. I’m guessing it ended up on the cutting room floor.

I give Couples Retreat at really glad I seen it.

I found myself watching the movie with a very critical eye. To have a Starship Troopers-esqe announcer instead of an opening crawl was disappointing, but over quickly. Also, not having the traditional John Williams theme was confusing, but passable. In the end, I decided that what it was a very deliberate way to signify that this is a new-Star Wars right from the beginning of the movie. This isn’t your father’s Star Wars….it’s your son’s.

As I sat there and attempted to enjoy the film for what it was, I started to see a video game unfolding. Each scene gave the characters an time-based scenario to complete. It first became apparent when Anakin and his Padawan had to destroy the Separatist shield before they reached the Republic cannons. I felt very much like I was watching a game that was all cut scenes. Much of today’s children’s entertainment is done this way, but it isn’t very appealing to anyone over 15 I would think.

The movie looked beautiful. If you replaced the human characters with actors, it would have passed for a live-action movie. The sets were amazing, and the characters moved perfectly. If this quality of animation is going into the TV series, it will be a must watch.

I was a huge “Star Wars” fan from the moment I first saw the movie in 1977. We saw it at the drive-in, and I had a Han Solo and Chewbacca action figure by the end of the week. I was obsessed with everything “Star Wars” for years. I once joked that if they released freeze-dried turd with a Star Wars logo on it, I would probably buy it. When “Star Wars” was shown on TV for the first time (OnTV), I recorded it on my Dad’s VCR. My neighbor and I proceeded to watch the movie every day for an entire year. I can still recite Episode IV verbatim. But now, I’ve passed the torch to my son…it’s his “Star Wars” now.

The movie was good, but it felt more like something that should have been on Cartoon Network. It felt as if they took the first 3 episodes of the new series and released them as a movie. If it hadn’t had been my son’s birthday, it would have been the first Star Wars movie I didn’t see in the theaters. I give “Star Wars: Clone Wars” a could have waited for the DVD.

The good part of “Wall-E” is the production. Actually, it is great not just good. The animated environments in this film are better than most CGI in live action movies. I was visually stunned, and until the human characters appeared, it didn’t feel like I was watching a cartoon. Also, the personalities of the robots come though amazingly. With nearly no words spoken, the two robots become very real characters that you care about.

The bad of this movie was that I was just bored most of the time. The great thing about Pixar movies are that the stories are so well done and directed, that it could have been live action. The pacing of this film was horrible. Many of the scenes were repetitive (look at the cute robots), and lacked substance. A good 15-20 minutes could have been cut from this movie, and it would have been the masterpiece everyone is touting. But as it stands, it was the worst Pixar movie I’ve seen (I’ve missed a couple).

A perfect Pixar movie is “Ratatouille”. If any animated movie should have won the real Best Picture Oscar it is “Ratatouille”, not “Wall-E”. I believe that the combination of the Pixar-halo and the visual beauty of the film is why critics are mistakenly calling this film “the best animated film ever”. They were ready to herald it before it ever premiered.

Even my children (ages 7,8,10,12 & 13) agreed that it was slow.

Should you go an see “Wall-E”? Maybe. If you enjoy beautiful rendered environments, then yes. Otherwise wait for the DVD and check it out. I give “Wall-E” a should have waited for the DVD.

What I’ve always loved about the Indiana Jones movies was the feeling of old-timey serials; the kind of movie my grandparents would have seen when they were kids. All of the Jones movies had that feel, but some more than others. Crystal Skulls was in parts, but the overall storyline took was the problem. Although Raiders, Doom and Crusade always had an element of the supernatural, they were based on myths and traditions that real archaeologists studied. In Crystal Skull moving into the realm of aliens (or “transdimensional beings”) was a bit much. It pulled me out of the Indy-Universe and into something else. The ending was more X-Files than Indy.

There were also a couple of out of place things that took me out of the movie, or McGuffin’s that didn’t materialize. First, the 3 gopher scenes. They were just too cutesy and very out of place. Only these 3 scenes of the entire movie had this absurd tone. Lucas ‘jar-jar’ed’ this one. Then, there was the “McCarthyism”. This appeared to be a MacGuffin that would later affect Indy in the story. Instead, it was an obvious political statement about the current climate in America. Not that I don’t agree with Spielberg/Lucas on this one, but I don’t watch “Indiana Jones” for political statements. Leaving out both of these would have made this movie nearly perfect.

Most people don’t believe me, but this movie was almost exactly what some friends and I talked about in college in the early 90s. We were discussing the Indy Trilogy back and I brought up the idea that Indy had a son/daughter that he didn’t know about when him and Marion hooked up in Raiders. I was inspired by Jones Sr. in Crusade and the Young Indy TV show. What I hypothesized at the time is almost exactly what we got in Skulls, and I loved that. It made for a great story, and the only ‘cheese’ was the usual Indiana Jones ‘cheese’. I’m glad that they went with this storyline. I would be very open to continuing the franchise with Henry Jones III, but I’m not thrilled with Shia Labeouf. I like him as an actor, but he doesn’t have the charisma that Ford brought to Indy. To continue the saga, we would need that attitude.

More and more I come to enjoy the character interactions and character development in movies, film and books. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls” was very character driven, in my opinion. The interactions between Marion, Indy, Ox and Junior were amazing. This is what made the movie for me, and why I’ll watch it again. During the traditional Indy chase scenes, they played off each other beautifully and made their dysfunctional family very believable.

Even though I had problems with the movie as a whole, the terrific greatly outweighed the bad. I can’t wait to see this again, and I hope you see it too. I give “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls” a have to see it again!

If the movie has one flaw it is that the story is too good, and too compelling. Like “Batman Begins”, it is a film first, and a comic book movie second. The superb acting by all involved, and the intricate story all make for a perfect movie. Because of this wonderful film, the action is lacking.

There is only really one big scene in the film, and it is a night. Having the battle at night takes away from the near perfect special effects….we can’t see them. The other big battle scene (Iron Man in Afghanistan) is took short, but proves the amazing accomplishment this was in visual effects as it is in full sunlight in the dessert.

As I said before, more than half of my family of 7 really didn’t know Iron Man. My wife agreed to see it only because Robert Downey Jr and Gwyneth Paltrow we in it. On the way out, she said, “We’re going to have to buy that one when it comes out.” She doesn’t like comic book movies, but loved “Iron Man”.

On that note, what Favreau really accomplished was giving us a movie that both fans and newcomers alike would love. We weren’t beat over the head with comic references, but at the same time kept true to the characters. Tony Stark’s questionable character and subsequent crusade was explained perfectly and enjoyably. By the time the Mark III appeared, everyone knows who Tony is/was and what his motivations are to become a Iron Man. Also, credit for this must be given to the more than perfect performance of Stark by Downey. He brought his A-game to what some actors would consider a ‘b-movie’.

“Iron Man” was the best comic book film I’ve ever seen — because it was a film first and a comic book movie second. “The Dark Knight” has a lot to compete with this summer.

I give “Iron Man” a have to see it a few more times!

New Frontier is set in the late 1950s early 1960s and is based on the comic “The New Frontier“. This is pre-JLA, and the government is fresh off McCarthyism where superheroes are outlawed. I don’t want to get into spoilers, so I’ll leave it at that. The film accomplishes getting you into the era. Constant references are made to real historical events (even if they are not accurate), and the look and feel is consistent with the comics of the day.

One of the best tools used to accomplish this are the voices, especially Batman and Superman. Batman sounds like the gruff detective you’d expect from the 40 and 50s, and Superman has a similar ‘feel’ to his voice. Each and every hero conveys there period via tone of voice, and it is absolutely immersing.

The story is excellent, and heartfelt. It chokes you up in a way that almost no live-action movie ever has been able to do. Yes, there are definite cartoon moments, but it is a cartoon. With not much script massaging, this movie could be the best superhero movie ever to grace the screen. This should be the new Justice League movie.

I give “Justice League: The New Frontier” a I have to see it again.

In his feature film debut, director Bryan Gunnar Cole imagines an otherworldly America in the not-too-distant future where the draft has been reinstated to fight the global war on the terror and a new generation is face with the prospect of military service. In the center of it all are three conflicted friends: Aaron (Elija Wood), a budding novelist; George (Chris Klein), a corporate lawyer; and Dixon (Jon Bernthal), a cab driver.

The Good:
Elija Wood’s performance was excellent (of course). He played the conflicted, dual-personality writer with perfection. He has a way to make himself so much part of the character that draws you completely in. Ginnifer Goodwin, for her brief time on screen (see the bad), was simply engaging. Every scene she was in, your focus was completely on her. Also, Jon Bernthal put forth a performance I hadn’t seen from him before. His strong, conflicted character was the star of the movie, even given some of the terrible dialog he had to say.

The Bad:
Chris Klein was dreadful in this movie. His expression never changed, and I was never able to identify with him at all. Ginnifer Goodwin was wasted playing his wife. Her longest scene was relegated to one not part of the narrative (video tape). The editing was all off. We jumped from place to place, time to time, without much guidance. Also, being called “Day Zero”, I would have expected at least a feeling of how many more days they had until ‘the day’. We only got 3 points in a time-line: 30 days, next Saturday, and tomorrow.

What could be good or bad was the lack of a single message in the film. It bounces, unconvincingly, from pro-war to pro-peace, sometimes in the same scene which takes you out of the film. Having both sides of the issues represented in the movie would have worked, if they hadn’t made the arguments so weak.

Conclusion:
“Day Zero” had allot of potential. One could imagine that it would have been better had it been picked up for theatrical release and had a second look. I get the feeling what we got on the DVD was the directors cut. I give it a “Good to See”.

For another review, go here.

I’m sure that the writer/director, Adam Brooks, has an 10 year old daughter. The scenes between Reynolds and Breslin were perfectly written, and performed. Originally I was wary of the ‘telling a backstory’ style that the movie employed, but the Abigail Breslin made it for me.

The supporting cast, Elisabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz, and Isla Fischer were also excellent. In fact, this was the best I’ve seen Fischer. She showed range in this film that I’m just not used to from her. Banks, though having a small part, was extremely good. Again, it appeared she stretched in this film (as Reynolds did), and did it well. Weisz was actually the least impressive (in my opinion). She did ok, but I wasn’t close to blown away.

The strong part of this film was the story. It could have been cheesy, but it wasn’t. It was sweet and intriguing at the same time. A disappointment in the film was partly my fault. At the beginning, Isla Fischer is given 2nd billing in the credits followed by Breslin, and I noticed. So, I knew up front that she would be the one that Reynolds would end up with. I wish they would have given Breslin 2nd billing instead.

I give Definitely, Maybe a “Really glad I seen it!”.

I rented the movie because my kids wanted to see it. Was is surreal? Yes. Was it as witty and funny as Bruce? No. But it was still a good movie. It reminded me of those live action Disney films of the past (Witch Mountain, Computer Wore Tennis Shoes, Flubber). I think that most, if not all, reviewers looked at this film from the point of view of Bruce Almighty 2. And that is a shame.

If you have children between the ages of 6 and 10, I highly recommend this film. They will love it.