Enchanted Movie Review

Even outside of fairy tale stories, we still have an idea of what it means to live “happily ever after.” Even in action movies, we expect the hero to get the girl and ride off into the sunset. This archetype isn’t accurate to real life, and what better authority to comment on real world vs. fairy tale romance than Disney? This is the backbone of Enchanted (2007).

Giselle (Amy Adams) lives in the animated fairy tale world of Andalasia. She lives in a cottage in the woods with her animal friends and dreams of meeting a handsome prince. One day her Prince does come. She meets Prince Edward (James Marsden) and he proposes they be married tomorrow morning. The wicked Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon) is threatened by Giselle; not wanting to surrender her rule of Andalasia to the prince and princess. Narissa banishes Giselle to a far off place where “there are no happily ever afters,” real-world (and live-action) New York City. Here Giselle meets Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a hardened but friendly single divorce lawyer. Robert reluctantly takes Giselle in at the insistence of his young daughter, and with great suspicion by Robert’s girlfriend. Prince Edward follows Giselle to New York along with his manservant Nathanial (Timothy Spall) and her chipmunk friend. Edward roams New York searching for his princess while Nathanial, under Narissa’s command, attempts to kill Giselle with poison apples. Fairy tale antics collide with real world complications, causing those involved to reevaluate what it means to live happily ever after.

Enchanted makes unabashed references to classic Disney fairy tales. It starts off with an opening narration (provided by Julie Andrews) read from an old book resting on velvet as was done inSnow White (1937), Cinderella (1950), and Sleeping Beauty (1991). There are many shots through out the movie that herald back to scenes from Disney classics such as the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast (1991), Giselle’s cottage being modeled after The Seven Dwarves’ cottage,  and Narissa being modeled after the evil queen in in Snow White. In one hysterical scene, Giselle sings a tune to summon animal friends to help clean up Robert’s apartment. The New York wildlife which responds are rats, pigeons, flies, and roaches; nevertheless they help do dishes, dust, and clean the bathtub. This pays homage to Snow White and Cinderella scenes. One of several musical numbers includes some of the old Mickey Mouse Club member (now seniors) as dancers. These references are fun and hilarious, but are seamlessly incorporated so they fit into the story without drawing attention to themselves.

I have yet to see a movie featuring Amy Adams where she is not a lovable character. Amy Adams’ inherent cuteness really helps sell her Disney-like Princess role; she acts sweet, naïve, optimistic, and makes exuberant displays of emotion. No one else could have played Giselle like Amy Adams does. Prince Edward is a headstrong hero who is very accustomed to everything working out perfectly as they always do for the prince charming, but New York doesn’t operate by fairy tale rules; Edward is yelled at in one scene after trying to slay a bus he mistakes for a dragon. James Marsden plays up the awkwardness of the colliding world settings very well, providing a lot of ironic and embarrassing humor. Patrick Dempsey plays the straight laced, down-to-earth lawyer; it’s great to see how Giselle helps show him that fairy tale love really can exist in the real world, and also how Robert helps show her that there is more to love than simply being with someone. The way Dempsey and Adams bounce off each other helps makes this movie both humorous and thought provoking.

Enchanted is a highly charming movie that the whole family would enjoy. If you haven’t seen it, you should. If you have seen it already, you should watch it again. Kids will love the quirky humor and the fairy tale situations, adults will enjoy the romance and nostalgic allusions of Disney classics they grew up with. This movie is comfortably sitting on my movie shelf with many of my other favorites; this is one worth owning, especially if you have small kids.

Thor Movie Review

Marvel Studios has been making a lot of Super Hero movies over the past couple of years. Hardcore Marvel fans are getting revved up for the Avengers movie; hints of this major crossover movie have been dropped since Iron Man (2008). But possibly the most difficult Avenger to make a movie for would be Thor; he’s not human, he’s a god, most of his story and adventures don’t take place on Earth. Thor is so far removed from these other heroes that doing his story justice would be pretty tricky. Fortunately, 2011’s Thor movie (directed by Kenneth Branagh) pulled it off well.

Many centuries ago, a race of Frost Giants tried to take over Earth. A powerful race called the Asgardians lead by their king, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), thwarted the Frost Giants. These events became Earth’s Norse Mythology. Years later Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the son of Odin is to be made king of Asgard. The Ceremony is interrupted by some Frost Giants in the castle. Thor gathers some friends to retaliate against the Frost Giants’ home world, demanding answers. In doing so, Thor violates a treaty between the Asguardians and the Frost Giants. King Odin puts a stop to Thor’s juvenile, violent tirade and as punishment for Thor’s arrogance and stupidity, banishes Thor to Earth in modern day New Mexico as a mortal, stripped of his powers and strength. Thor, assisted by an astrophysicist college student Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), must try to recover his powers, atone for his mistakes, regain his father’s respect, stop the Frost Giant’s impending attack, and reclaim his place as heir to the throne of Asguard before his manipulative brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) claims it for himself.

A big obstacle for the writers and film makers of this movie was that a majority of the characters are gods. Things could easily have gone overboard; making the characters so foreign to the audience that they wouldn’t be able to relate to the characters. But even the mortal audience can understand the sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki, being severely humbled, discovering what your limits are, and loosing the respect of someone you admire. Also, you get a sense of what each character is capable of doing or not doing. It was never remotely established that these characters can do anything at all; they do have the powers of gods, but they still remained believable within the context of their world setting.

The special effects and CGI graphics were stunning. Occasionally you get movies that are simply a display of visual effects with a weak storyline stringing them together like in Tron: Legacy(2010). The visual effects in Thor complimented the storyline so well that they simply blended together. Asgard was nearly completely done in CGI; it was pretty and sold the idea that here magic and science truly are the same, as Thor describes it. Traveling between worlds via the Bifröst was a colorful spectacle that was awesome to see, but still held to the movie’s color scheme and helped establish the power of the Asgardians.

The pacing of the movie was done well. The prologue, narrated by Odin, seemed a little bit rushed; similar to the opening prologue to The Lord of the Rings (2001). There was a lot of back-story to establish but it was important to the main events, and had they revealed the back story slowly over the span of the movie it wouldn’t have set up the main plot as well. It was important for the audience to be on the same page that Thor was from the beginning. During part of Thor’s duration on Earth the pacing slows down. But this, coupled with the far reaching expanses of desert, establishes the feeling of despair and of being lost. Aside from these two points in the movie, the pacing is fairly consistent and keeps the audience interested without allowing them to fall behind.

Thor was a well done film that was enjoyable to watch. Marvel fans will enjoy seeing it. Even those new to these Marvel characters will enjoy this film. Between Thor’s endearing dialogue, the stunning visual effects, and fun characters, Thor is certainly worth watching or adding to your home movie collection.

Who is your favorite superhero from The Avengers lineup? Comment below and tell me why!

X-Men Origins: Wolverine Movie Review

In general, sequels usually are not as good as the original movie, but they aren’t always bad. Prequels, however, are consistently horrendous; often tarnishing the original movie and characters. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) is no different.

In 1845 Canada, young James Howlett (Hugh Jackman) sees his father killed by groundskeeper Thomas Logan. The trauma activates the boy's mutation: bone claws protrude from James' hands, and he kills Thomas, who reveals with his dying breath to be James' real father. James flees into the forest along with Thomas's son Victor Creed (Liev Schrieber), who is thus James' brother. They spend the next century as soldiers in the American Civil War, both World Wars, and the Vietnam War. Major William Stryker (Danny Huston) offers the two of them a position in Team X, a group of mutant special operatives. But James leaves because of the questionable actions and disregard for life. Years later, James now goes by Logan and lives in Canada as with his girlfriend, Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins). Colonel Stryker appears to warn Logan that someone is killing members of Team X. Shortly after, Victor murders Kayla and attacks Logan. Stryker offers Logan a way to beat Victor; an experimental procedure that would reinforce his skeleton with adamantium, a virtually indestructible metal. Logan asks for new dog tags that read “Wolverine” after a story Kayla had told him. After the procedure, Logan overhears Stryker ordering Logan’s memory to be erased. Logan violently fights his way out, and learns about Stryker’s elaborate plot to combine the powers of several mutants into one: Weapon XI, the Mutant Killer.

The story in X-Men Origins: Wolverine really seems haphazardly thrown together in an attempt to maintain interest in X-Men film series. The story was rushed; they threw in lots of well known comic book characters but didn’t give them enough screen time to allow any of them to develop into the interesting characters that they are. I was most upset about Remy “Gambit” LaBeau (Taylor Kitsch). Gambit was always a favorite of mine; like most of the other characters, he shows up for a little bit delivers a few lines and shows off some mutant powers and that’s it. One of Gambit’s more endearing traits is his thick Cajun accent, which is scarcely detectable in this movie. It just so happens that Gambit owns and knows how to fly an airplane to transport Wolverine to Stryker’s hide out; that never occurred in the comic books. It’s almost like after the story was written, they then stuck iconic Marvel characters in wherever it was convenient, regardless of how illogical it would be for the previously established characters. It’s just poor writing.

It was neat to learn about where Wolverine came from, but it removes the intriguing mystery behind the character. Wolverine is one of the more popular X-Men characters, and there really is no one that could play him like Hugh Jackman, who is perfect for the role! Wolverine’s ability to heal from anything makes him the perfect action hero, and the action in this movie is over the top and fun. Having an invulnerable character as the main protagonist brings to mind tank-like action heroes of the early 1980’s; fun but uninteresting. I’d hate to think this movie has essentially thrown Wolverine away, but there’s not much left that can be done with him. It would have been much better to have Wolverine go on a quest to find out all the details of his past (since in the original movies he has amnesia), and see how these revelations change him as a character and how he grows from it. Starting over from the very beginning and encountering token cameos from other popular characters doesn’t do the franchise or characters any favors.

If you’re an X-Men fan, I do not recommend watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It’s a weak attempt to keep the franchise alive and will leave you upset with what they did to your favorite characters. The only reason to watch it is to see Hugh Jackman be Wolverine some more. If you aren’t a fan, it will just leave you confused and annoyed. Just stick with the first two X-Men movies.

Movie Review: In Time

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), comments about anti-communism McCarthy-era paranoia. George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968) critiques 1960s domestic racism. In Time (2011) is a creative science fiction movie that makes some interesting social commentary about issues of today.

In the future, scientists have discovered how to make people stop aging after 25 years. At this point, they have one year left; the minutes are visibly ticking down on a digital readout on their left forearm. Everyone is allowed to earn more time through work, gambling, or investment. As a result, time has become the main currency. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) lives in a time ghetto with his mother (Olivia Wilde), barely making ends meet with scarcely a whole day on their hands. Will rescues a wealthy, depressed man named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer). They fall asleep after a long talk about life. Will wakes to find a century on his clock and Hamilton about to jump off a bridge. Will tries to stop him, but is too late. This is caught on a security camera; making Will a prime suspect in Hamilton’s supposed murder. Will uses his newfound time to get to a wealthier time zone. There he meets Sylvia Weis (Amanda Seyfried), daughter of the richest man alive, Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser), who is himself heavily involved in controlling the time markets. A Timekeeper police officer, Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy), attempts to arrest Will who takes Sylvia hostage. After seeing what the time ghetto is like, Sylvia decides to help Will overthrow the system that perpetuates the socioeconomic divide, all while eluding the Timekeepers.

In Time was written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who also wrote and directed Gattaca (1997). The two movies have some qualitative similarities; Niccol seems to make up an amazing and creative science fiction setting, and put an underdeveloped storyline into it. The premise in In Time is just fascinating! You see subtle background details about how time as currency has changed things; I like the 99 Seconds Store and the Timeshare Savings and Loan. This is some good science fiction that makes you think about the real world; the value of a dollar, how you spend your time, and the current economic status of the world. It does this very well. Unfortunately that is about all that In Time does. It seems to continually beat you over the head with the premise to make sure you know there is a socioeconomic divide, and that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Niccol could have developed story further and expanded the premise more; he just didn’t venture deeper into the movie’s potential.

Whenever I see Justin Timberlake, I can’t help but think of the boy band fad of the 1990’s. Timberlake was pretty good in In Time, given the script and material he had to work with. He pulls off the action hero look well: lean figure, facial stubble, and buzz-cut hair. I can overlook his *NSYNC years after seeing In Time. Cillian Murphy delivers a good, but different villain as Raymond Leon than he did as Scarecrow in Batman Begins (2005). He was suave and well mannered in his cruelty. His motivation for wanting to stop Will was selfish, but understandable. He is the kind of villain you like because you can relate to him on some level. Amanda Seyfried did a good job of playing a pretty sheltered brat. That’s about the extent of the character, but like Timberlake, she did a good job with what she had to work with.

In Time was a really interesting science fiction combination of Logan’s Run (1976), Bonnie & Clyde (1967), any Robin Hood movie, and the real world Occupy Wall Street movement. In fact, if you are involved with Occupy Wall Street in any way you’ll love In Time. I’d highly recommend seeing it. If you are not, I still recommend seeing it just because the setting and themes are so interesting. But since the story isn’t all that dynamic, I’d recommend a matinee viewing or just wait for it on home video.

Movie Review: The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers is a novel by French author Alexandre Dumas. There have been many film and cartoon adaptations made dating back to 1903; at least once a decade, sometimes more. You would probably be hard pressed to find someone who is unfamiliar with the synopsis, whether they know it or not. What, then, could Paul W.S. Anderson’s new adaptation offer that hasn’t been done dozens times before over the last century? One word: Steampunk.

In Venice, The Three Musketeers Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), with the help of Athos' lover, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), steal airship blueprints made by Leonardo da Vinci. However, they are betrayed by Milady, who gives the blueprints to the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Upon returning to France, the Musketeers are forced to disband by Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) for their failure. A year later, young D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) leaves for Paris to become a Musketeer. He manages to offend each of the disbanded Musketeers, and challenges them to a duel. The four are brought to the young King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) and his wife, Queen Anne (Juno Temple) for dueling in public, but are given a full pardon. Richelieu, with the help of Milady, plants false evidence to suggest that Queen Anne and the Duke of Buckingham are having an affair, in hopes that war would erupt between the two countries, kill King Louis, and put himself (Richelieu) to rule France. To prove the Queen’s innocence and stop a potential war, the Musketeers must retrieve the planted evidence and her stolen jewels, from Buckingham, the most securely guarded location in England.

This adaptation of The Three Musketeers (2011) is very fast paced and focuses primarily on the action, and little on the characters. There are some token moments of character development that are vaguely interesting. Since those moments are all we get, the characters remain underdeveloped and simple. Arthos is interesting because he’s lost faith in the world, in people, and in love as a result of Milady’s betrayal. It is restored by the end of the film, but it is not revealed why. D'Artagnan is a quintessential arrogant young man out to prove himself to the world. His inexperience is taken advantage of a few times by other characters, but this doesn’t seem to make him any more humble. Milady is interesting with her political machinations, resourcefulness, and constant double-crossing. However, the fact that she is dishonest seems to be what defines the character. There really is nothing more to her than that. The script was awful and the characters were oversimplified, in spite of some good opportunities to make them more interesting.

Steampunk is basically sci-fi technology that is generally set in the Victorian era where everything is still steam powered. Air ships, mechanical computers, and steam- powered robots are all common in Steampunk. It can be interesting, but generally just adds unnecessary aesthetics. That is basically what it does for The Three Musketeers. Arthos uses an aquatic combat suit to take out enemies from underwater. Da Vinci’s vault has ridiculous booby-traps reminiscent of an Indiana Jones movie. Milady has enough mechanical spy gear to make James Bond look like mall security. The climactic fight is between two air ships trying to knock each other out of the sky. None of these devices, or anything like them, should exist in that time period. It’s kind of like if someone were to make a movie of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables and add a bunch of Steampunk technology. Nothing meaningful would have been added, it might detract from the movie's overall quality; it might be fun, but ultimately pointless.

Anderson’s The Three Musketeers was a fun action movie. It had flat characters, a dumb script, great special effects, and a creative setting. This really isn’t worth watching in the theaters unless you really value the 3D experience. If you’re already a fan of Steampunk, you’ll love it. If you are not, it is still kind of fun, but it’s definitely a renter if anything.

Movie Review: Source Code

Judging by the preview, Source Code (2011, PG-13) seemed like a generic action flick with stereotypical characters and plot. It looked like it could be worth seeing but not a ground- breaking cinematic achievement. As it turned out, it wasn’t a terribly ground-breaking achievement, but it was much better than expected.

Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is an American Army helicopter pilot, his last memory is on the battle field in Afghanistan. He wakes up on a commuter train in Chicago and realizes he has the identity of one of the train’s passengers. Thoroughly confused, he tries to figure out what is happening. Eight minutes after waking up, a bomb goes off in the train and Stevens wakes up again in some kind of pod. A military woman named Goodwin (Vera Farmiga) speaks to him through a monitor and explains that he needs to go back and find the bomber. Stevens wakes up again, and relives the same eight minutes. But the bomb goes off again, sending Stevens back to the pod with no new information. Stevens demands to know what is happening. Goodwin and Dr. Rutledge (the scientist in charge) explain that he is part of a project that can put someone in another person's consciousness during the last eight minutes of their life. He is not time traveling, just living the last eight minutes of someone’s life. Simply deactivating the bomb would not change anything, but figuring out who the bomber is would help the government find the bomber in real life. Stevens lives the same eight minutes over and over trying to find the bomber, but he finds himself falling in love with Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan),  the woman traveling with the man in whose consciousness he is living.

The story line in this movie is pretty interesting; it’s almost as if Groundhog Day (1993) and Die Hard (1988) were blended together to form Source Code. You relive the same events over and over until you’ve memorized everything about the people around you, all while trying to stop a very clever terrorist.  There was some good potential for the movie to get boring since you are viewing the same eight minutes repeatedly. However, like Groundhog Day, it keeps showing a little bit more information each time Stevens returns to the train. This gives the audience ample opportunity to see new things and try to figure out who the terrorist is along with Stevens. There is just enough information revealed about the story as it progresses so that the audience is not left bewildered, nor is there so much revealed that the audience figures everything out too quickly.  The movie develops in such a way that it keeps the audience guessing and yet the twists and surprises are not completely unexpected.

Source Code is an action movie, but it has a great theme to it; life is precious and should be lived to its fullest. Stevens is by every means a military soldier, but he is intent on trying to save the lives on the train despite being told that they are already dead in the real world. I thought this was refreshing since even protagonist military officers are often portrayed as combat-driven war machines. When in the pod communicating with Goodwin, Stevens is generally a by-the-book officer. On the train, he’s still a good person with no real intention of hurting anyone, but he is willing to use force to find the terrorist. Military officers do have souls and feelings for people, contrary to how the media and cinema often depict them. Stevens asks Christina several times just before the bomb goes off, “What would you do if you knew you only had one minute to live?” This is a bit cliché, but is applicable to the theme and the concerns Stevens is dealing with each time he asks.

This really was an exciting movie and was lots of fun. It’s worth watching at least once. It may even be worth a second viewing so you’ll know what to look for since you would know the end from the beginning.  Definitely see Source Code, its more intelligent than your average action movie.

Movie Review: The Butterfly Circus

Independent films and short films often are made on a shoe string budget and are rarely seen by the majority of movie goers. Such films are usually praised in film festivals and then never heard from again. Thanks to the internet and websites like YouTube.com more short films are able to be distributed and seen by a larger audience. This is how I stumbled upon The Butterfly Circus (2009).

Set during the pinnacle of the great depression, Mr. Mendez (Eduardo Verástegui) the ringleader of a notorious performing troupe leads his humble circus as they travel around the devastated American countryside. The attractions in The Butterfly Circus are meant to inspire and instill hope in its audience, a much needed thing during the depression. While visiting another traveling carnival, Mr. Mendez and his troupe discover a man named Will (Nick Vujicic) with no limbs as a freak show exhibit. Will ends up running away from the carnival to join Mr. Mendez in his circus. Will is inspired by the performers in The Butterfly Circus, and starts a personal journey to find hope in his life in spite of his considerable physical limitations.

The story in The Butterfly Circus really is a formulaic “feel good” tale of hope, inspiration, and self respect. Given the synopsis above, you can probably make a remarkably accurate guess as to how the story ends. It’s fairly predictable, but it’s still not bad. It is pleasant, touching, and somewhat inspiring. Some of the circus performers were depicted as having struggles that society condemned them for; one had been a prostitute that became pregnant and then was unwanted, one was an alcoholic with a temper, and one was an old man that no one wanted around. Each overcome their trials and began inspiring others. There’s some symbolism with butterflies related to this that is a bit overt, but since the symbolism isn’t the driving force in the movie; I can forgive it.

 The casting director did a great job. Eduardo Verástegui did a magnificent job of being a charismatic and dapper ringleader that sees the good in all people. The character wasn’t flashy, but his mustache and the top hat he dons makes him look so natural and charming. One of the other circus performers, Otto the contortionist, is played by Doug Jones. Jones is in a lot of major motion pictures, but is rarely seen; he plays Fauno and The Pale Man in Pan’s Labyrinth (2006), The Silver Surfer in Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), and Abe Sapien in Hellboy (2004) and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (2008) and many other uncredited costumed characters. We actually get to see him in this movie. He doesn’t get many lines, but he pays the part well. This short film also introduces Nick Vujicic. Vujicic is a motivational speaker who really does have no arms or legs. This film almost seems tailor made for him; it mirrors the self respect and gratitude themes that he often speaks about. Vujicic’s acting skills need to be polished a bit more; a couple of his lines seemed a bit insincere or forced, but he overall did very good job for his first role.

The sets were impressive; they really conveyed the depression era quite well, especially with the vintage cars. The color scheme had lots of dull colors; browns, tans, oranges, and dirty yellows give it an old-timey sepia quality to the movie. This helps visually express the despair and depressed feeling that the country had during the depression.  The period costumes were also very convincing. Even the bedraggled people living in tiny plywood huts were wearing tattered versions of 1930’s style clothing. All these elements combined really brought to life the depression era, even though the sets were still simplistic and small.

The Butterfly Circus is a fairly charming short film that is clean and tastefully done. It has won awards at independent and short film festivals. It is touching, and I admit it brought a tear to my eye at the end. It’s only about twenty minutes long and can be watched for free at the address below, and according to the website it is in process to becoming a feature length film in the foreseeable future. Keep an eye out for it.

http://thebutterflycircus.com/short-film/

Have you ever seen a really good short film? What was it and what impressed you so much about it?