Tangled 3D

Throughout the course of this review, I am going to attempt to make as many references as possible to hair and puns involving hair. Let's see how I do.

There are very few times that an animated movie, not made by Pixar, generates a huge amount of buzz in my head. They usually tend to cause a lot of frizz. But for some reason, when I saw the first trailer for Tangled, I actually wanted to see it. I actually considered spending money on it! Preposterous, you say, no one over the age of 13 would comb through their wallet for money to sit in a theater with loud, annoying children! Well, I did, and I can honestly say I am glad that I did. (Even though I had to shell out extra cash for 3D. Stupid expensive movie tickets).

Rapunzel, excuse me, Tangled is the story of Rapunzel. Everyone knows about the princess locked in the tower, who grows her hair out to incredible lengths so her true love can climb up into the tower and rescue her from, I don't know, being bored to death I guess. Well, I researched the original tale of Rapunzel and am pleased to announce that Disney has retold the story in a very cool way. Once upon a time a drop of sunshine fell to the Earth. Where it landed a flower grew. A very old woman, Mother Gothel (Donna Murphy), discovered the flower and for some reason sang to it, probably because it glowed constantly. After singing to it Mother Gothel's youth was restored. She tried to keep the flower a secret so she could live forever. But in the kingdom Gothel lived in, the Queen had grown very sick during her pregnancy. The men of the kingdom searched far and wide for a miracle cure and whatdoyaknow there's a magical flower. They boil the flower and serve it to the queen as tea. She gives birth to a daughter with very blonde hair, even though both the king and queen had brown hair (Check the mailman!). Mother Gothel knows that the child's hair is magical and tries to cut some of the girls hair for herself, but as soon as she cuts it the girl's hair turns brown and loses its magic. Gothel steals the child away for herself, locks her in a tower, and raises her as a mother would. Only Rapunzel can never leave the tower nor cut her hair.

As anyone could imagine, spending eighteen years in a tower is kind of awful. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) wants to ignore her (fake) mother's wishes and visit the floating lights that appear on her birthday every year. She gets her chance when a thief, Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi, Chuck) tries to hide in the tower to escape his pursuers.

Brushing off the incredible psychological trauma that would occur after living in a tower your whole life with no contact from anyone besides a diabolical fake mother and a chameleon (coincidentally, the cutest sidekick of any Disney movie) Tangled is a fun movie.

The six year old next to me certainly enjoyed it. The dialogue was very fast and amusing and the love that was quite obviously going to brew between Rapunzel and Flynn didn't feel as forced as it was in The Princess and the Frog. Flynn is equal parts daring, charming and roguish with wayward strands of goodness in him. Rapunzel is so doe-eyed cute that you could forgive her any faults, if she had any. The supporting animals, a horse named Maximus and the aforementioned chameleon named Pascal, have almost as much personality as people without having any dialogue at all.

The 3D did not add much to the film but I have to say that the 3D was used very well in terms of depth. 3D used to be a gimmick that would throw a T-rex at the crowd so the audience would be shocked. I'm pleased that it is being used more along the lines of creating depth within the film. Makes the experience that much more enjoyable.

There isn't much that is bad about the film. The voice overs at the beginning and the end could be brushed out. Or at least reworked in an amusing way because they were god-awful. Also, one song felt kind of awkward.

But I loved the film. It is perfectly enjoyable for both kids and adults. If Toy Story 3 hadn't come out this year Tangled would definitely be in the running for a best animated feature Oscar.

Only 4 references, phooey.

3 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

SPOILER ALERT

For those who have seen it, Rapunzel looks way better blonde than brunette.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

The last installment of the epic wizardry saga is finally here...sort of. The latest Harry Potter movie has started a trend that I am sure will be copied many times in the near future. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact. Another fact that I'd like to state is that I would much rather watch a 4-5 hour movie that finishes the saga in an incredible fashion than be forced to wait another couple of months for part 2.

The wizarding world is experiencing an upheaval of earthquake-like proportions. The illustrious headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, has been killed. The ministry of magic is quickly falling into disarray and the evil wizard himself, Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is rising again to subdue England and eventually the world. Voldemort has a slight problem though. Harry Potter and pals know his one weakness, a series of horcruxes that contain parts of Voldie's soul. They know that the only way to kill Voldemort is to hunt down and destroy the horcruxes. While they have an incredibly long camping trip trying to accomplish this, they learn that Voldemort has been seeking three items known as the Deathly Hallows, objects that, if possessed, will make the user master of death.

But I am sure you know all of this. I have to warn everyone right now, if you haven't read the book, don't see the movie. It will be a futile attempt to understand the multiple plot lines and characters popping on and off of the screen. The Harry Potter series has never done this well. Fans of the Lord of the Ring movies know that their films stand above the rest because the movies stand beside the books in terms of quality. Without reading any of the Potter books for background and seeing the movies is like setting War and Peace on fire and expecting the fire to spell out plot points with smoke.

For fans of the book, the film is fantastic fun. It has various discrepancies, the book emphasizes some things while the movie emphasizes different ones. In these case it is easy to figure out why the director chose to do what he did and most of the time I found myself agreeing with his decisions. There is just so much information to include, even if you split the book into two movies.

The actors are all familiar faces, but we are treated to a significant lack of supporting characters. Voldermort gets a depressing amount of screen time, same with Severus Snape, Bellatrix, and Madeye Moody. Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint are still fun to watch, but not all the time. Especially if only one of them can actually act (Watson). The absolute best part of the film by far is when Harry, Ron and Hermione impersonate three Ministry employees in order to steal a horcrux. Watching three unknown actors doing their best to act out the personality quirks of the three was hilarious. I wish the scene was even longer. The movie itself is fairly amusing with witty and quick dialogue, considering its very dark tone.

It is a very good entry into the Harry Potter franchise, and may be the best (I'll have to re watch number 4 to decide). Sadly, despite its successes, The Deathly Hallows Part 1 isn't really a movie. Like the poster says "The End Begins." The entire movie is a beginning, and maybe a little of the middle. There is no climax, no conclusion, it just ends. I shouldn't expect anything different but it's a little hard to swallow and makes it a hard movie to review. Needless to say I am as excited as can be for the final installment.

3 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

p.s. What is up with the scene of Harry and Hermione making out in the nude? That was not in the book.

Places in the Heart: A Quick Review

"Places in the Heart," written and directed by Robert Benton, was released in 1984.  It stars an incredibly talented cast led by the always wonderful, Sally Field, who won an Oscar for her role as Edna Spalding.  Some other cast members include Danny Glover, John Malkovich, and Ed Harris.

"Places in the Heart," takes place in Texas during the Great Depression.  Edna Spalding's husband is killed early on it in the film. She has to sell cotton to help support her two young children and try and make enough money to make the payments on her house.  Helping her with this is Moses (Danny Glover), a man who randomly shows up at her house one day wanting to do odd jobs and who gives her the idea for selling the cotton.  Then we have John Malkovich playing a blind man, who moves in with the Spaldings.  I'm kind of tired of explaining the plot so we will leave it at that.  

Sally Field is incredible in the lead role and definitely earned that Oscar.  First of all she cries, yet again in a movie.  When Sally Field cries the average movie-goer should be moved.  She also is bursting with emotions throughout this movie.  She has to deal with the loss of her husband and is determined to make enough money to keep her house and her kids.  Sally Field is always convincing in her movies, and this is no exception.  She does not overact, except in "Soapdish," or other movies that actually require massive amounts of overacting.  I don't really feel like commenting on the rest of the cast, mainly because I'm getting tired and no one else won an Oscar.  However, each actor plays an interesting, developed character adding to the drama of the film, and to the irregular family that is eventually formed.

The cinematography is beautiful, so I will throw that in here since it's one of my favorite aspects of a movie...and extremely necessary.  Overall there is nothing too innovative about it and everything is done simply but effectively.  Given the dramatic nature of "Places in the Heart," anything more would have been completely inappropriate.  We get a lot of beautiful outdoor shots, filmed on location in Texas.  This greatly added to the film, perfectly depicting the setting and time in history. Also, there is one impressively executed scene involving a tornado, that looks extremely realistic and everyone should be quite proud of it.  

Basically, if you love Sally Field like I do, or any member of this cast you will enjoy it.  It's a beautiful film, visually and otherwise, about survival and deals with some racial issues of the time as well.  It is a little bit slow, since that's the nature of the plot/genre.  It does not get boring though because of the compelling story and characters.  If I were you I would watch it, but then again I love classic movies and a certain lady who once played a flying nun on TV. 

3 1/2 out of 4 stars, even though technically this is a "Quick Review".

-Joseph Sbrilli   

Absence of Malice: A Quick Review

"Absence of Malice" came out in 1981 and was directed by Sidney Pollack, the year before he would direct the Dustin Hoffman classic, "Tootsie." It stars Paul Newman, Sally Field, Melinda Dillon, and obviously a lot more.  This basically is a journalism thriller.  Yeah I realize that sounds incredibly boring and kind of a ridiculous combination.  However, quite the opposite is true of this movie.  The two leads are phenomenal.  Then again most people know that when they see Paul Newman and Sally Field's names so close together.  She is Megan Carter, a journalist who gets some false information that makes it seem like Michael Gallagher was involved in a man's murder.  She naturally prints this in her article and this infuriates Gallagher because it's simply not true.  Throughout the movie they are both searching for the truth. These two work very well with each other in "Absence of Malice."  All their interactions seem completely natural.  At first it's strictly business, but then they naturally get into a brief romantic, intimate relationship.  Which happens way to fast, and is one of the few semi-negative reactions I had to the movie.  But I guess very few people can resist Paul Newman.  Emotions fly as they find out the truth and that Megan Carter had no right to write the articles until she knew the entire truth.  Journalism ethics come into play a lot throughout the movie, especially when Teresa (Melinda Dillon), a friend of Gallagher's, commits suicide after Carter reveals information about her relationship with Gallagher, in the newspaper.  And Sally Field gets to cry a little bit, which is always a pleasure to watch since she is just so good, and really should get back to doing those movies she is so great at...which is basically any movie she chooses to make.  Visually and sound-wise the film also succeeds.  The score adds drama and at times suspense, perfectly complimenting the serious storyline.  Also, there are great tracking shots, throughout the movie, mainly in the newsroom and lots of great reactions shots from the cast as emotions are running high.  It is visually just a well composed film, so I won't go on anymore with that.  I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, for the reasons I stated, and a couple more I didn't feel like writing.  Much of this had to do with the cast being led by two of my personal favorites.  I imagine I will enjoy it more when I see it again.

-Joseph Sbrilli 

Morning Glory

 I am not a morning person. I would prefer to wake up at noon every single day of my life; and when I do wake up early, the sickeningly bouncy morning news shows tend to make me lose my breakfast. Morning Glory (What’s the story?) may have convinced me to give them another try, but only if Harrison Ford is one of the anchors.
  
Morning Glory is based around the life of Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams). A very determined, hard-working woman with so many bangs it’s as if her head is a willow tree. After being recently let go from a New Jersey morning show for not being qualified enough, she applies around looking for a job. She gets a call from the worst morning news show known to man, Daybreak. Becky takes the job because, lets face it, she’s pretty desperate. After flailing around like a goldfish with no water, Becky makes a desperate ploy to save the show: use a contract loophole to force Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford), one of the worlds greatest reporters, to anchor the failing Daybreak. Becky soon discovers that Pomeroy is about as nice as a pack of rabid wolverines and refuses to say words like “fluffy” because it is beneath him. With ratings taking a dive, Becky has to employ some show saving techniques to keep her job and the show afloat.  

Morning Glory’s strength is in its actors. Rachel McAdams is usually a strong force within her films but her performance is fairly weak compared to others. Jeff Goldblum and Diane Keaton playing a senior executive and co-anchor respectively are very funny and many of the supporting cast throw their weigh around as well. But the real heavy hitter is Harrison Ford. His first movie since 2010’s flop Extraordinary Measures and he hasn’t lost a bit of his pizzazz. Responding gruffly to coworkers and referring to Becky’s love interest as “Senor Dip$#%!” had me immensely enjoying myself. I wish he and Sean Connery would do a movie together. It would be the epitome of manliness.  

Where Morning Glory fails, it fails pretty hard. There are some clichés within the film that make it just a shameless copy and paste exercise, but the really annoying bits involve Becky and her new man Adam. Their budding love (based entirely off his want of any girl he can see, and her want of being too busy for any sane guy) drags the movie down at every point. It is incredibly forced and a pain to sit through.   

I wouldn’t get up bright and early to see this morning news show, but I might Tivo some reruns.

2 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Unstoppable

"Unstoppable," based on true events, was directed by Tony Scott.  It stars Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Rosario Dawson, et al.

Although it is based off of an incredible, true story, the names, location, among other things were changed.  The plot surrounds a railroad company, in Pennsylvania that is trying to stop an unmanned train that is cruising through the countryside with lots of dangerous chemicals onboard.  Some idiot decided to abandon his post on the train and not brake the massive vehicle correctly.  Naturally, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine are available, as Frank Barnes and Will Colson, to try and save the day.  Barnes has been a railroad engineer for 28 years and Colson is just starting his wonderful career as a train conductor.  Right from the start you know the movie is going to end one of two ways, but that shouldn't take away any enjoyment from it.

The two lead actors are phenomenal.  With Denzel Washington that a given, because he is a incredible actor.  He takes on the lead role of veteran, widowed railroad engineer.  He's tough, but as the movie progressed I felt sympathy for him.  Chris Pine, who I had only seen before in "Star Trek,"proved himself to be quite an actor.  He is much younger and inexperienced and his character of Will Colson is in many ways the opposite of Frank Barnes.  He also has some family problems, involving a restraining order and other fun things.  These two actors have natural chemistry with each other.  Almost every scene involved them interacting in some way, usually in rather tight quarters of a train, so the dialogue and acting between the two had to come off as believable.  Rosario Dawson, as the train dispatcher, has the next most important role after the two leads so I will mention her briefly.  She plays a extremely strong, competent woman, who is in charge of many of the decisions regarding stopping the train, and talking with people who can help.  The rest of the cast are not as prominent as these three.

The cinematography is among the movie's strongest aspects.  The film, for the most part is beautifully shot.  Tony Scott and the director of photography really racked their brains for ever possible way of keeping a runaway train interesting for slightly over an hour and a half.  In my opinion they were completely successful.  First, you have the every popular aerial shots of the train blasting down a stretch of railroad.  This is good to get a nice wide shot and to show how vast an area we are dealing with.  My personal favorite shots from the film include the camera filming the train from underneath.  It gives a fantastic, different perspective of this massive vehicle crossing over the railroad tracks.  This occurs multiple times and I loved it each and every time.

I had some positive and negative reactions to the sound in "Unstoppable."  Overall the score is nothing special.  It is more or less the same score played again and again.  This would be fine if it added to the visuals, but it sounded extremely tribal to me most of the time.  And I am positive there were no Indians (or Native Americans, if I have to be politically correct) in this film.  However, at times the score seemed to be synchronized with the wheels grinding and sparking on the steel of the tracks.  I'm pretty sure string instruments were used and throughout the movie I described the sound to myself as "steely."  Another comment I have on sound is regarding the actual sound effects, which are memorable.  Like I mentioned earlier the grinding of the wheels throughout the movie, the sparks that are bound to fly during such a scenario, among other train related sounds and the atmosphere in general all add to the intense feeling of the movie.

Another negative aspect I found with the film is that toward the end the camera went a little crazy.  I have a feeling Tony Scott just wanted to make the camera more frantic as the climax came closer.  Which is fine and that very well may be his style, however I found it dizzying at times.  The camera was shaking everywhere and at times spinning rapid fire around characters.  Before that the hand-held camera technique was used well and I believe it added to the film's suspenseful, engaging tone.

Be prepared to have deja vu from last summer, "The Taking of Pelham 123," also directed by Tony Scott.  Denzel Washington is back, since he and Tony Scott have a Tim Burton-Johnny Depp/Martin Scorsese-Robert De Niro/Leonardo DiCaprio type of man-crush going on.  Also there are an awful lot of trains and similar overly digitized look at times, among other things.  However, "Unstoppable," plotwise, actingwise, etc is the better movie, as much as I love John Travolta.

So I was surprised to see how many great reviews this got.  I was a little skeptical after "The Taking of Pelham 123," got mostly negative reviews last summer.  I thoroughly enjoyed myself throughout "Unstoppable."  The leads and visuals are great.  The story is compelling and suspenseful, no thanks to the score.  If you love the leads, then see it in theaters...I recommend the second row in the theater so you can see Denzel Washington's beautiful face up close.  Otherwise rent it.  If you don't at least have a little bit of fun watching it, then I really feel sorry because something must not be right. 3 out of 4 stars.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Due Date

The due date has finally arrived and the delivery room is all set, but this may be a baby that only a mother could love.
   
In the world of genius pairings, Due Date looked as if it had topped them all. The suave, sexy and incredibly manly/funny Robert Downey Jr. fresh off of Iron Man 2 and the bearded, gut-bustlingly funny, definitely going to be typecast Zach Galifianakis of The Hangover. What could go wrong? Apparently a lot of things.
   
Peter Highman (Downey Jr.) is on his way to Los Angeles from Atlanta so he can be present at the birth of his first child. After getting booted from the plane because of an altercation with Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) Peter finds himself with no money, no I.D. and only one way home. 3,000 miles and 3 days with the world’s strangest man.

Due Date is the equivalent of this decade’s Planes, Trains and Automobiles. The formula for a two-man road trip movie is simple. Have one man, through an unforeseen circumstance, be forced to rely on a second man. The second man must be nice at first but needs to have such a different personality and lifestyle than the first man; enough to create conflict down the road. The second man will then reveal something about himself that explains to the first man why he acts in such a way and the two will end up best friends forever. Due Date got all these steps right but threw away any likeable or enjoyable characters. Brief glimpses within the movie show some shreds of humanity within them but is tossed to the wind in the next scene. When Due Date finished, I was utterly dumbfounded when Peter and Ethan ended up as friends. It makes no logical sense because they are so at odds with each other.

And it’s a shame because Due Date is really funny. Downey Jr. and Galifianakis are kings of comedic timing. The situations they are thrown in become increasingly ridiculous and very funny: taking a wrong turn down the US-Mexico border after getting high (No, Officer my eyes are red because I have glaucoma), gunshot wounds, and launching off a bridge after Ethan falls asleep in broad daylight. It has all the makings of a classic road trip movie, but the only character the audience can actually relate to is Ethan’s dog, Sonny.

I may have been expecting too much, but putting Zach Galifianakis in a movie with Robert Downey Jr. should be pure gold. The due date may have been a little too early on this one.

2 and a half out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Hereafter

"Hereafter" is the latest film from the Hollywood legend, Clint Eastwood.  This time he tries his hand at a supernatural drama.  Peter Morgan ("The Queen" and "Frost/Nixon") wrote it and the cast includes the likes of Matt Damon, Cecile de France, and Bryce Dallas Howard.

The primary theme throughout the film is the afterlife.  Eastwood and Morgan explore various possibilities, but don't exactly get it right...which I wasn't expecting.  One should not go to a Clint Eastwood film for theological truths.  "Hereafter" consists of three different people, with different stories, all involving the afterlife.  All three stories are happening in different parts of the world, in the same period of time, eventually leading to them all somehow meeting at a book convention in France...yes....more on this later.  Matt Damon is George Lonegan, a psychic in America.  He has the ability to communicate with the dead, but is trying to leave that part of his life behind, because he believes it to be a curse.  However, this becomes impossible when all sorts of people want him to contact dead relatives for them.  This includes Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), whom he meets in a night cooking class and at first thinks there may be a chance at a relationship with her.  Cecile de France is Marie Lelay, a French television journalist who survives a tsunami and glimpses death.  The third person is a young English boy named Marcus who's twin brother is killed by a truck.

The cast, overall is extraordinarily good.  Matt Damon, once again proves what a capable actor he really is, no matter what genre one tries to fit him into.  He has great screen presence as the lead character, who indirectly has a link with the other major players in the film.  I'm glad Clint Eastwood decided to bring him back, after working together on last years "Invictus".  I had no idea who Cecile de France was before I saw this movie.  My knowledge of French actresses is non-existant.  However, she is a talented actress who was able to believably show the aftermath of such a disaster, as a tsunami and trying to move on with her life.  The fact that she looks perfectly fine mere scenes after she's practically dead, just requires some suspension of disbelief.  The boy who plays Marcus, is literally a no name kid, who will probably never act again after this...He's already met Clint Eastwood, so anything else would just be a let down anyway.  He is extremely believable as a young child dealing with the loss of a brother.  Good thing Eastwood went with a complete unknown.  One more thing to comment on, regarding the actors: Bryce Dallas Howard.  I love her father, Ron Howard, with every fiber of my being, but I just don't think she is a very good actress.  She just doesn't feel natural many times.  And she really needs to go to the Sally Field School of Fake Crying, because in "Hereafter," Howard came dangerously close to laughing at one point I'm pretty sure. 

As a rule I think computer generated special effects are the spawn of Satan, unless of course we are talking about "Jurassic Park".  However, I was quite impressed with what was done in "Hereafter."  The beginning of the film includes a massive tsunami in Thailand.  Obviously this would have been impossible to do without the use of computers, but the end result was phenomonal.  It did not look fake at all, at least to my untrained eye.  Nothing screamed "CGI," like what unfortunately happens, many, many times in life.  The disaster immediately sucks you into "Hereafter" and right from the start, Marie is introduced. 

I enjoyed how the movie moved back and forth between the the different characters.  This was a successful plot device that was used instead of just having blocks with the same character.  It makes things more interesting to watch.  Also, I enjoyed seeing how a common theme effected a few different people, from different countries and under different circumstances.  All three of them meeting in France is extraordinarily far fetched...but then again so is Matt Damon playing a psyhic...so one has to cope with these things in order to enjoy the film, as Mr. Eastwood intended. 

Clint Eastwood is not only a very talented director and producer, but he also writes the music for his films, which greatly impresses me.  The score overall was rather slow and not overpowerly, but given that this was an emotional drama, anything more would have been innapropriate.  Also, be prepared to experience deja-vu during the end credits.  The music is very reminscent of "Gran Torino."

One more thing, more of a disclaimer.  There is a lot of French spoken in this film.  I personally liked that they had this, because if I'm watching a scene in a film taking place, and filmed in France I do not expect them to speak English.  True, realism is not a priority in "Hereafter," but French being spoken added to it.  Luckily there were subtitles, so I wasn't completely lost.  This however, may cause some people to run to the hills. 

Clint Eastwood is 80 years old and has been working in Hollywood in some fashion for 55 years, directing for 39 of those years.  With that being said, he is still sharp as a tack and literally cranking out movies rapid fire. It impresses me what he is able to do at that age.  With "Hereafter" he directly a well made and well acted movie.  It's a little long, but my ADD actually didn't kick in.  So anyway...if you're like me and find it incredibly hard to resist a movie that includes Clint Eastwood and Matt Damon's names on the poster, then check out "Hereafter."  If you can resist those to wonderful people, then I don't know what to say, it's just very un-American.  3 out of 4 stars



-Joseph Sbrilli