Reviews written by registered user
|28 reviews in total|
In a world where the teenage-high school film genre is a worn out and
tired formula, 'Easy A' shines by offering something new. It's funny,
smart, witty, and never settles for the cliché. 'Easy A' is easily an
Emma Stone stars in her breakout role as the film's main character, Olive Penderghast. Olive, is apparently a "nobody" at East Ojai High School, and her best and only friend, Rhiannon (Aly Michalka), is obnoxiously foul-mouthed. At the start of the film Rhiannon invites Olive to her family's camping trip for the weekend. Olive lies and says she has plans that weekend, going on a date with a guy. Lying is the central aspect of 'Easy A.'
After the weekend, in which Olive did nothing but stay upstairs and listen nonstop to a song she hates (Pocketful of Sunshine), Rhiannon insistently asks for details about her "date." Olive ends up lying and saying she lost her virginity over the weekend. However, a problem quickly arises when the school's extremely religious Christian classmate, Marianne (Amanda Bynes), overhears Olive admitting she lost her virginity. Soon enough the entire school learns of Olive's lost virginity. Olive may have been "invisible" before, but now all the attention's on her.
Olive hasn't told anyone the truth yet, but when she's in detention (for calling a fellow Christian extremist a bad, bad word) she ends up revealing the truth to a fellow detention-mate, Brandon, who is gay and gets bullied for it every day. When Brandon asks Olive to fake having sex with him, she initially rejects his proposal. However, the nice and helpful girl that she is, Olive agrees to the plan to help end Brandon's bullying. The two enact their plan at a party, where there are sure to be many witnesses, and soon enough everyone believes and falls for the plan. Days later, more and more guys, mostly the "nerdy" or "loser" types, pay Olive to pretend they did a variety of things with her in order to raise their high school social-status. Olive is now opened for business.
See, Olive's problem isn't that she's a pathological liar or anything. Olive just wants to help people who are down in the dumps. She downgrades her reputation to improve others'. Throughout all this trampy and trashy mess, we still like Olive because Emma Stone's portrayal of her is charming and confident. Emma Stone has also starred in 'Superbad' and 'Zombieland.' I've only seen 'Zombieland,' but she was great in that, too.
'Easy A' boasts a strong ensemble cast that includes a variety of hilariously memorable characters. Olive's parents are some of the many highlights in the film, hilariously portrayed by Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) and Patricia Clarkson (Shutter Island). Olive's parents are the parents that every teenager wished they had. They're carefree, yet at the same time supportive and trustful of their children. Olive's favorite and likable teacher, Mr. Griffith, is portrayed by Thomas Haden Church (George of the Jungle, Spider-Man 3, Imagine That), and his wife is memorably portrayed by Lisa Kudrow (Friends). Kudrow may seem like just another funny character thrown into the mix, but she's actually more important to the film as it goes on.
The film may have one big conflict, which is Olive's lies and downgrading reputation, but this one conflict soon causes many more problems for her. She loses old friends and new friends. Many guys have payed Olive to pretend to do many things with her, but not one guy has asked her out on a real date, and she wonders why. Another problem arises that concerns Marianne's also extremely Christian boyfriend (Cam Gigandet), and it's a pretty shocking one and will surely catch you off- guard.
'Easy A' is never clichéd, not even with it's romantic side. There's a guy (portrayed by Penn Badgley from The Stepfather) Olive has had a crush on for years, and there's a part in the film where they seem to be closer and their relationship seems to escalate. How come, of all the guys at her school, the one boy Olive likes doesn't believe all the rumors? The guy's reasoning and explanation for this is a good one, and it makes sense because it ties into something Olive indistinctly mentioned to us early on in the film.
Six years ago we were given 'Mean Girls', which offered something new to the teenage-high school-comedy genre. 'Mean Girls' was hilarious and clever, and 'Easy A' is pretty much in the same league as it. This is the first film I've seen by director Will Gluck, who also directed 2009′s 'Fired Up!'. Gluck's next film, 'Friends with Benefits,' is to be released next year, and once again features Emma Stone and Patricia Clarkson, as well as Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis (That 70′s Show), and Woody Harrelson (Zombieland, Seven Pounds).
PS: 'Mean Girls' is one of the most quotable films ever. 'Easy A' is probably just as funny, and also has some quotable lines, though not as much as 'Mean Girls.'
PSS: 'Easy A' features cameos that include: Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange), Lalaine (Lizzie McGuire), and Fred Armisen (Saturday Night Live).
PSSS: If you don't believe me that 'Easy A' is an amazing comedy film, or with my friends, here's some extra commentary: Justin Timberlake "Wanna see a movie that's great??? Go see Easy A tonight!!! E. Stone rocks in it. 'Nuff said" Taylor Swift "Just saw Easy A. Easily, definitely, absolutely my new favorite movie."
What would you do if you were convicted of murdering your wife and her
lover, and sentenced to two life-imprisonment terms? Would you just
give up? Would you try to escape? How long would you have to live in
prison before you lose hope? Writer-Director Frank Darabont (The Mist,
The Green Mile) explores these situations, and the themes of integrity,
hope, and freedom.
Tim Robbins portrays the character of Andy Dufresne, the man who's situation was described earlier. Andy claims he didn't commit the murders, but strong evidence overruled his claims. Did Andy really not do it? We never really know for sure until later on in the film. When Andy first arrives at Shawshank prison, he's antisocial, and goes along with the prison's routine for months. After a few months, however, Andy starts developing a friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman), a man who can get practically anything from outside the prison to inside, for a price. Andy asks him for a rock hammer. The importance of this rock hammer is evident later on in the film. But Andy's request for this rock hammer at the beginning of the film allows him to make a new friend at the prison to keep him company.
Andy's time at Shawshank prison causes it to change dramatically. Within a few years, Andy becomes an important aspect to the prison. His accounting skills help him receive benefits for himself and his friends by helping the prison guards with their taxes and other financial issues. The warden of Shawshank prison also takes interest in Andy, and soon uses him for a complex money scheme. Andy's role in the prison allows him to have a library established in the prison, as well as get beers and other things for his friends. Andy is basically making a new life for himself in the prison, but he still wants to get out. However, how many years does it take in the prison for him to give up? How many years does it take until the prison is your only way of life? This becomes a problem for many prison inmates, and even to a friend of Andy's.
One of the prisoners, Brookes (James Whitmore) is in this predicament. Brookes has lived in the prison for so long, for many decades, that it's all he knows. In the film Brookes gets released out of Shawshank prison, and is allowed to live a normal life; he has a job and a home. However, how does one live in a world that has drastically changed over the past decades? When Brookes was a little boy, cars were rare, but when he gets released from prison cars were everywhere. It's difficult to cope with, and Brookes is unable to deal with it. How long until Andy is the same way?
The film portrays two decades of Andy's sentence, with many different interesting story lines and conflicts mixed in, with many different characters. 'The Shawshank Redemption' has one important plot involving Andy's life in the prison and his hopes to escape, along with numerous side plots involving new inmates and such. The third act of the film is the quickest, and one of the most interesting parts. It involves a strong, yet completely unpredictable, resolution to the film. It also wraps up the lives of the main characters within the film in satisfying ways.
'The Shawshank Redemption' does an excellent job at portraying the themes of integrity and freedom, and how the prison can sometimes be some peoples' freedom, with the outside world being feared. Andy's integrity and hopes to escape from the prison is also a major part of the film. 'The Shawshank Redemption', adapted from the Stephen King novel, 'Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption', is a strongly-acted, well-written, and wonderfully-directed film. It's an amazing and inspirational piece of work, and probably the most perfect film I've ever seen. The plot is always at the same constant pace, and is never slowed down and boring. Every single part of the film is strong, entertaining, and thoughtful. It truly is a perfect film (this doesn't necessarily mean it's the the best film ever in the history of cinema).
PS: 'The Shawshank Redemption' came out around the same time as 'Forrest Gump' (1994). Both films are amazing and one of the best, but 'Shawshank' was overshadowed by the popularity of 'Gump.' But years later, 'Shawshank Redemption' was placed even higher than 'Forrest Gump' on AFI's 100 Years 100 Movies list. 'Shawshank' is also currently the #1 movie of all time on IMDb. Go figure.
Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) has a problem; he has anterograde amnesia,
which means he can't produce new memories. The cause of this is from an
accident, one which viewers will be able to find out about near the
middle of the film. Leonard can remember everything before his
accident, but anything after he can't remember; he can only go on for
an uncertain amount of time until his brain restarts, making him lose
memory of what just happened.
Leonard's problem allows director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, The Prestige) to create something truly unique with the film by presenting it in a reverse-chronological order. 'Memento' is presented in two different ways throughout; the parts presented in color are played forward, but are ordered chronologically backwards; the parts presented in black-and-white are played forward, and are also ordered in chronologically forward. Some may get slightly confused by this style, but it shouldn't take long until the concept catches on and is understandable.
'Memento's' backwards-storytelling style is what keeps the film interesting. The viewer only knows as much as Leonard knows, at the beginning, but we gradually know more than him as the film comes to a close (though, we don't know that much more than him). When new scenes come up, they're usually funny and entertaining because it makes us wonder how Leonard got himself into that situation; of course, we find this out when the next scene comes up, which ends with the beginning of the previous scene.
The film's unique style forces viewers to constantly think, question, and assume about many different things within it, which is good. 'Memento' forces viewers to pay attention on what's happening on screen, as well as what those scenes could mean or be leading to.
Throughout the film, Leonard has relationships with different characters, and we never know who is Leonard's ally or enemy, not what their motives are until the end. Leonard has a close friend, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), who helps Leonard in his path to find and kill a specific person, but is Teddy really trying to help him or not? Leonard also develops a close relationship with a woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne moss), whom is also trying to help Leonard find and kill a specific person, but who is Natalie? What's her motive, and is she truly helping him? Leonard believes someone's trying to make him kill the wrong person, but since we only know as much as he does, we never know if Teddy is that person, or if Natalie is that person, of if neither of them are the ones trying to lead Leonard in the wrong direction. This confusion and possibility keeps the film entertaining, and opinions regarding Teddy and Natalie will surely switch multiple times throughout the film.
When the film ends (which is technically the beginning), many things are explained. However, these explanations are open to interpretations; just because the film answered certain questions asked throughout, it doesn't mean those specific answers are the right answer. The ending of 'Memento' makes you think about possible scenarios that could have happened before the events of the film, and how those could be important to the film. 'Memento', by the end of the film, is pretty straightforward, but like Inception, the film is left open to interpretation.
Director-writer Christopher Nolan does an excellent job at setting up the film's premise and style. 'Memento' is actually adapted from the short story, 'Memento Mori', which was written by Nolan's younger brother, Jonathan Nolan. Christopher Nolan is always skilled in his psychological-thriller type films, and his skill is definitely not missing from 'Memento', which is one of his early films.
PS: 'Memento' might take some viewers mutiple viewings in order to like. Personally, I didn't like the film the first time I saw it. The second time around, however, I loved it! Some might like the film the first time, like some people I know.
Director Edgar Wright ('Hot Fuzz', 'Shaun of the Dead') has given "the
world" something truly special. He's given the cinematic-world a
visually appealing, eye-candy, adventure of a movie! 'Scott Pilgrim vs.
The World' is truly a unique film, and one of the best this year!
Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old guy with relationship issues. His last serious relationship ended with his heart broken, and now he's dating a 17-year-old high school student, Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). However, we're never sure if he truly likes Knives, or if he's just desperate. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, literally, his world is forever changed. This girl is Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and for some reason, Scott has a thing for her he thinks she's the one. However, to truly be with Ramona, Scott has to defeat her "Seven Evil Exes;" he literally has to fight and battle with each one.
The most exciting moments in the film are these seven battles. The film keeps these battles interesting by having a variety of characters, each with their own unique personalities. Before seeing the film, I knew that the battles would be video-game-esquire, but I thought that the battles would all be similar, and eventually get tedious. However, I was gladly wrong. Each and every one of the battles were unique in their own ways, depending on who the "Evil Ex" was. One is Bollywood inspired, one music-inspired, and more. Some battles are more memorable than others, but each is visually stunning, and unique.
I loved the personalities of each of the "Evil Exes." All of them were hilarious in their own way; one was a vegan-powered jerk, another was a Hollywood actor. They're all so unique; one was even a girl! Ramona's female ex, Roxy Richter (Mae Whitman), was totally badass and had a slightly special speech pattern. I loved how some of these battles required Scott Pilgrim to use strategy to defeat the exes, and not just simple brute force. Some of the battles required Scott to use what he knows about his opponent's background and personality, and it's gratifying to see how Scott pulls off some of these victories. These "Evil Exes" are, for the most part, portrayed by unknowns. The most popular, to me, were Chris Evans ('Fantastic Four') and Brandon Routhe ('Superman Returns'). However, the celebrity-status of the actors in the film didn't technically affect the way we viewed their characters. For example, Chris Evan's character of Lucas Lee was, to me, the least interesting of the "Evil Exes." 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' had many, many characters, each different, and for the most part, are likable and enjoyable.
Scott has a gay friend and roommate, Wallace, played wonderfully by Kieran Culkin. Culkin's portrayal of Wallace truly stole the film. Culkin's character was funny in almost every scene, and many of his lines were quotable-worthy. Knives was a crazy character that could have been portrayed in two different ways annoyingly or awesomely. Ellen Wong does a great job at making Knives appear obsessive and crazy, while at the same time innocent and lovable; her character could have easily been seen as annoying, but Ellen Wong pulled her off the right way. Also, Knives is totally badass by the end of the film. Aubrey Plaza ('Parks and Recreation') portrays a memorable minor character, Julie Powers. Julie is one of Scott's friends and has the unique ability to censor her speech, which is hilarious.
The film has so many different characters that are so different and unique, that it's hard to choose a favorite. However, there are some characters that could've been better. To me, Ramona Flowers seemed too distant and not-right for Scott Pilgrim. Her character just had a straight-faced, uncaring personality throughout the entire film. I didn't sense any chemistry between her and Scott Pilgrim, but hey, maybe that's what her character's supposed to be like. The twin "Evil Exes" barely had any screen time, and had a short battle; they literally didn't speak one line.
'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' has an extremely fast pacing, and it works great. Straight from the beginning of the film, you can tell that everything happens fast in the film. The dialogue is even fast at some parts. This fast-pace requires fast transitions, and I felt like the transitions were well-done. The visuals in the film were also amazing and well-done. I loved how well the film managed to pull off a video- game feel, and make it not cheesy. The film had "pee bars," "coins as rewards," "health points," and so much more. All of these things fit naturally in the film, and they're awesome. The weapons were amazing, and the fights were all well-choreographed.
'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' has everything you could possibly want in a film! It has wonderful actors, memorably unique characters, an interesting plot, quotable dialogue, a unique style, spectacular visuals, and so much more! It's truly, truly unique (I know I've said that a lot, but it really is!) and is definitely a stand-out film from most that are currently out. No other film this summer, or this year, has been this stand-out since Inception. Both films are definitely on the top of my "Best Films of 2010″ list, for sure!
PS: Who doesn't like Michael Cera? He's such a lovable actor, and has that unique ability to be "liked" in any film he does! He's awesome.
PSS: 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' is ridiculously awesome. Go see it! You don't have to be "nerdy" or "geeky" to like or understand the film's concept and unique style. I went with a lot of friends, and most of them surely weren't the gamer-types. The film's appealing to males as well as females, for sure!
PSSS: Once again, go see 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World!'
Zac Efron is a great actor. He's matured and grown so much over the
years, especially from his 'High School Musical' days. Since then he's
starred in 'Hairspray', which was an awesome musical remake; '17
Again', which I really liked; and 'Me and Orson Welles', which I
haven't seen yet, but has gotten remarkable reviews. Efron is a
charming actor, and the roles he chooses can do nothing but enhance his
acting career. 'Charlie St. Cloud' reunites director Burr Steers
(director of '17 Again') with Zac Efron. Like I said, I really enjoyed
'17 Again', so I was even more excited to see 'Charlie St. Cloud'.
'Charlie St. Cloud' involves the bond of two brothers Charlie, whom is graduating high school and has a scholarship to Stanford, and Sam, his 12-year-old-ish younger brother. The two brothers are extremely close. They spend lots of time together, and Charlie promises Sam that they'll play baseball every day until he goes to Stanford. Unfortunately, Charlie and Sam get into an accident, and Sam passes away. Charlie died with Sam, too, but he was revived by the paramedics. Since Charlie was technically dead for those few moments, he's now gained the ability to interact with his dead brother he's able to keep the promise he made to Sam before the accident.
What I've just explained occurs within the first 30 minutes of the film. That's the most emotional part of 'Charlie St. Cloud.' I found myself slightly teary-eyed. The rest of the film isn't as emotional as I had hoped, or as much as the trailers made it seemed out to be. Things happen too fast in the film. We know that there's going to be a romantic aspect to 'Charlie St. Cloud', as seen from the trailers, and that it would cause a problem for Charlie's relationship with his dead brother. However, that conflict wasn't dealt with enough it wasn't as emotional nor deep enough. It felt more like: (1) Charlie plays baseball with his dead brother every day, keeping his promise. (2) Charlie falls for a girl, Tess (Amanda Crew), and starts to have a relationship with her. (3) Charlie's brother, Sam, gets mad at Charlie for slowly forgetting him and his promise. (4) Charlie now must choose between Tess or Sam. I swear, the pacing of the film felt that fast and abrupt. There's not enough time in between each of those events for us to feel the emotion or even care much; I did care, but barely.
'Charlie St. Cloud' actually has a lot of supernatural elements to it, considering the main character can interact with his dead brother. There's more supernatural elements than I had expected. The biggest supernatural moment occurs in the film's third act, where we discover a big and unexpected twist. I was 'wow-ed' by the twist. The twist caught me completely off-guard, and it was a really good twist. Now, I wouldn't compare it to the awesome twists from 'Inception' or 'Salt', but the one in 'Charlie St. Cloud' is solid and works for the film.
This plot twist in 'Charlie St. Cloud', however, is where I found myself confused and have mixed-feelings about the film. The twist wasn't the bad part. The events and circumstances that caused the twist to be discovered is what I was confused about. I can't really say anything else to further explain what I mean without spoiling the film. If you see the film, I'm sure you'll know what I'm talking about.
The actors and actresses in 'Charlie St. Cloud' are very strong and are able to keep the film interesting, even during the slow and slightly boring parts. Zac Efron does a wonderful job at portraying an emotional and disconnected character. Charlie Tahan is convincing as a loving younger brother. The beautiful Amanda Crew is a strong actress opposite Efron. Heck, even Charlie's paramedic, whom has a small, but important role, is portrayed by a good actor Ray Liotta.
For the most part, I enjoyed 'Charlie St. Cloud.' It's a good supernatural-romantic-drama film. The film's odd mixture of genres didn't bother me at all; the technique just wasn't there. 'Charlie St. Cloud' is a strong and good movie, with a nice twist and strong leads, just with a slightly confusing aspect to it. The theme the film presented is also something to live by: "Live your life for something."
'Inception' is an amazing, imaginative, innovative, clever,
exhilarating, and (there are way too many positive adjectives to
describe the film) bad-ass film. I think Christopher Nolan has finally
found, no, created, his magnum opus - an amazing feat, considering how
early Nolan really is in his directorial career.
In 'Inception', director Christopher Nolan takes us into a world where entering peoples' dreams is a reality. In this world, there are people called 'Extractors' whom are able to enter peoples' dreams and steal any type of information from practically anyone. Leonardo DiCaprio's character, Dom Cobb, is the most skilled Extractor, and he has a very important job to do - a job that the basic plot revolves around. Dom Cobb is hired by a very powerful Japanese businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe) to do the impossible - implant a brand new idea into another person's mind; this task is called inception. The target is another businessman, a rival of Saito's, named Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy). The task of inception requires in-depth planning, and requires experts in a variety of fields. Thus Cobb must assemble a team of top- notch professionals in those certain important fields.
The remarkable Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays Arthur, Cobb's right-hand man, and has the important task of researching and learning about his targets. The lovely Ellen Page portrays Ariadne, an architect whose sole responsibility is to create the complex world of the dream. Tom Hardy portrays Eames, a wise-cracking shape-shifter, of sorts. And Dileep Rao portrays the chemist, Yusuf, who provided the special drugs that enabled everyone to enter dreams - he's also important for driving that van; you'll know what I'm talking about.
Cobb's team is amazing, and each and every one of them is unique and likable in their own ways. These characters' unique-ness and likability is helped by the fact that they're portrayed by a bunch of strong actors and actresses. The ensemble cast in 'Inception' truly is remarkably strong and superb. So many characters in 'Inception' are portrayed by well-known actors and actresses that I'm glad none of them were wasted. From the trailers, I figured the characters of Saito (Watanabe) and Fisher, Jr. (Murphy) would have minimal screen-time, because I figured their characters (the former the client, the latter the target) just wouldn't be focused on as much. However, I'm glad I was wrong. Watanabe's character stuck around for the entire film, and is actually important, though you won't know it till the end of the film. And Murphy's character was also featured a lot and important to the overall movement of the plan. Gordon-Levitt's Arthur is very charming and goofy, and the funny scenes that were actually included in 'Inception' were all funny because he was in it.
I loved Ellen Page's character. Christopher Nolan was actually very smart for putting a character like Ariadne in the film - her character helps us understand the film better. Since Ariadne is new to the concept of entering other people's dreams (as are we) and all of the complex rules that apply to them, it's extremely helpful when she asks questions since she's as confused about certain things as we, the audience, are. Page's Ariadne is like our senator or representative for the film, since she practically does represent us, and raises the same question as we do.
The complexity of 'Inception' is purposely frustrating and confusing. The film works because of that. And I love movies that make the audience frustrated and make them have to work with the movie in order to enjoy it (if they're done right, which 'Inception' definitely did). Films like 'Inception' are more enthralling when they're challenging, because you become even more satisfied when you actually succeed in understanding them.
The only major problem I had with 'Inception' was the fact that many times I couldn't understand what Saito was saying, and most of the time he was saying something important. It's important to pay attention to every single line spoken in the film, so when I couldn't understand Saito in his many important scenes, it left me clueless and confused. Also, I couldn't get over the fact that Saito promised Cobb that he would be able to fix all of Cobb's problems with just one phone call. How is he able to do that? Although I'm disappointed that the film never really explains this, I think it's actually better that it didn't.
'Inception' is a near-perfect film, and requires multiple viewings to truly understand its complexity. Christopher Nolan is an amazing director who hasn't made one bad film yet! I trust his ability to continue this streak. Freaking-A! I cannot get over the very final scene of 'Inception.' That final moment, I think, was the perfect way to end off the film. It's the kind of ending that will frustrate people, but it's also the kind of ending that's debatable, and is either praised or hated. I, personally, loved the ending. However, I did, along with almost everyone else in the theater, go "Awww" and "Omg" after that last, important scene. I just love how that ending teases everyone. 'Inception' definitely lives up to, or even surpasses, the hype surrounding it! The film is amazing on multiple levels, and in multiple ways, for multiple reasons. It's the movie of the summer. It's the movie of the year. And, quite frankly, it's one of the best movies of the decade.
17 Again was actually a pretty entertaining movie. From the looks of the trailer, it seemed that the main character (Zac Efron) would just experience being a teen again. However, the story is more than that. The main character turning back to a teenager is just something that drives the story. The movie shows his experience helping out his family without letting them know that it's him in teenage form, while at the same time teaching some moral lessons that every teen should follow. The movie is funny and very entertaining, and the acting is pretty good. Zac Efron is becoming a better actor, and the supporting cast are pretty decent. The movie would be the perfect, heartwarming family film if it wasn't for two main problems: 1) The movie fails to show any resolution with the main character's daughter. Even after the lessons she's learned from her teenage father in the movie, she's still the same desperate-for-love daughter by the end. 2) There is absolutely no relationship between the families other than with the father. The main character moved out of the house because he and his wife are divorcing, and his children seem to not care at all. Sure, they're cool with their teenage dad, but why do they hate their old dad so much? Also, it seems like the mom doesn't mind that her daughter's dating a sex-addicted ass hole. The couple act sexual and dirty around her, yet the mom seems to not care. I don't think the mom actually speaks to the daughter at all, only to her son. Near the end of the movie, the daughter speaks to her mom, but the mom fails to reply. WTF? But those are just little problems that most people will probably fail to notice.
I was pretty skeptical about Kung Fu Panda at first. I thought a movie about a kung fu panda would be too dumb and westernized. However, I was gladly wrong. Every element of the movie resembles an old Asian kung fu movie. The fight scenes are very memorable and you can tell the animators worked hard on them. One of the things I did hate about the movie is the casting of the voice actors. The "Furious Five" are supposed to be great kung fu fighters and stuff, and are voiced by celebrities. However, they barely have any importance to the story. And it seemed like Angelina Jolie's Lion character was the only important one. Jackie Chan was the monkey, and he literally had only two lines! There was absolutely no point in having these high profile actors. Some parts of the movie are too cliché, but overall "Kung Fu Panda" is pretty good.
I haven't seen the first Madagascar movie in a long time, so after seeing the sequel, it almost feels the same. In the sequel, the animals are now stuck in Africa, and the plot is similar to the first movie. The animals must learn to survive in an unknown land, and they each "chill" with their individual species. This movie feels just as funny as the first movie, but the animation in the first movie seems to be better. Also, I don't really understand the title. "Escape 2 Africa" . . . the animals accidentally crash landed to Africa, so it shouldn't called "Escape 2 Africa." One part of the movie seemed too similar to The Lion King, such as the one "bad guy" lion who just happens to be a darker lion than all the others. The story also seems to focus only on Alex the Lion. The other characters, especially Marty the Zebra, have less of a role this time.Although the two movies feel about the same, I'm slightly leaning towards the first movie as the better one, just because the main characters seem to have equal importance.
I went in to see Dragonball, not expecting much. The trailer already told me that the movie was gonna be very Americanized, have whack special effects, and a white Goku. Although it was exactly what I expected, the movie was still pretty fun. Everything was pretty lame, like the acting, the jokes, and basically all the characters. I guess the actor who played Goku got it right with the goofiness, but it still felt strange. All the actors were okay; they're weren't horrible like Street Fighter, but not "great." I felt that the actor that played Bulma the best out of the whole group. The actor for Yamcha was miss-casted; he sucked balls. It was weird that Cho Yun-Fat played Master Roshi and an older actor played Grandpa Gohan, when Roshi supposedly was Gohan's master, but whatever. Overall, the movie is just what you'd expect. The resolution and "plot twist" was kinda stupid, and was totally different from the Dragonball t.v. show. If the movie was at least 2 hours long (it was only 84 minutes, what a waste) the plot could've been better and stuff.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |