Avatar

It is finally here! James Cameron (director of Terminator 2 and Titanic) has been working on this "special project" for around 15 years now, waiting until the technology was just right to make his beloved film. He spent that time creating what his world would look like, making the language that would be used, and making his own "original" story from scratch. Well this is what he claims anyway. The story has actually been done a ton of times before. It goes with the plots of "Dances with Wolves" and "Pocahontas". One more movie that I realized today that this film is basically an incarnation Disney's animated movie "Atlantis" just with a different setting.

Avatar is about Jake, a man in a wheelchair, who gets the chance to be in a Avatar program on Pandora which is moon of an unknown planet. The setting is in the year 2154 and the humans are determined to gain the land of the natives(called Na'vi),which contains valuable minerals. The Avatar program allows Jake to be in the body of one of the 9-feet tall Na'vi and negotiate with the natives. From there, the story of Disney's Atlantis pretty much fills the rest of the story.

The graphics did look pretty good but they still looked unbelievable. When you are not focused on the movie you can really see how ridiculous a giant rhino-type creature looks with an unnecessary 6 legs. You can decide for yourselves whether the land of Pandora looks real or not. You may be asking "What format should I see this movie in?". My response would be to spend a little extra and see this in IMAX if anyone should choose to see it in theaters. James Cameron himself helped contribute to making the 3D technology and specifically for IMAX viewers. Cameron and his team helped out one another in making the film look good, but they did not do a very good job on working on the story.

As with any action movie, there is minor cussing throughout and also suggestive stuff. What I mean by stuff is the fact that the na'vi may be computer generated but still have clothing styles of Indian tribes (or Native Americans). Their necklaces barely cover their chest and their loincloths cover the bottom.

In my own opinion, see this movie if you are the type of person who wants to see movies like "2012" or you just want to see a movie for a fun purpose with no intention of a good plot, then go ahead and welcome yourself to Pandora, the home of the 9-foot tall naked blue alien monkeys who live on floating islands. As for me Avatar gets 3 stars, mostly due to the effects and cast selection of Sam Worthington (Terminator Salvation) as Jake.

2012

Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) seems to have a huge knack for making films in which the world blows up.

That is pretty much all that "2012" is about.


There has been some speculation that the world will end on December 21, 2012 because that is when the Mayan calendar ends. Of course it would not be much fun if it just so happened to be that the Mayan civilization didn't feel like making their calendar go further than 2012, especially considering that they are now extinct. In my head the film is not very realistic but it is entertaining to watch.

The story is all based around what the world would do in the case of global destruction and how one might survive it. It specifically follows the life of Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) throughout the catastrophic events of the movie as he tries to survive along with his kids and ex-wife.

The death and violence in this movie is intense and while you see people crushed by buildings from far away, you never really see the bodies of the dead people up close except once briefly. I am not sure what the purpose of this movie exactly was but it felt larger than life, like a superhero movie but even a little less real than that. The effects are okay, better than they could be, but still not enough.

Religious themes also HAD to be put in this disaster movie, because of prophecies told in the Bible about catastrophic events. In fact, there is even reference to "the people with the cardboard who had it right the whole time". In other spots the Bible is talked about briefly and the President also seems to be a believer and even quotes a verse (Psalm 23) to the entire country. It would seem like it would go with what the Bible says at first, but the ending of the movie makes out to be more of an allegory of Noah's Ark instead of Revelations.

This is not really a kid's movie because of the above descriptions and also there is cussing sprinkled throughout the movie and a few small and quick sex references. By the time you read this review, this film will most likely be in the dollar theater or soon to be on home release. In a smaller format, this may make the movie look even cheaper than I thought it was and also not as fantastic looking (as if it was). In the end, this movie is very overrated and the only thing it really has to offer is the benefit of seeing things blow up, and also the growing theory that the world will end 2012.

The Princess and the Frog

Disney tries it's hand again at making classic stories and fairy tales into cartoons. That is in fact what made Disney where it is today, starting with "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and moving on to numerous others such as "Winnie the Pooh" and "The Jungle Book". As if Disney could not find another book to make a movie of, they made sequel after sequel of movies such as these, in my opinion most of them having less quality than the last.

Now it seems that Disney is again heading towards the right direction. The original story of the Princess and the Frog that most people know goes something like this. The prince gets put under a spell by a witch, he turns into a frog, the princess kisses him and he is human again as they live hoppily ever after. Like they always do, Disney puts their own twist to this story and actually makes it much better than it could have been.

In this rendition, the prince is put under a spell then turned into a frog. When he does finally does get a kiss from Tiana it does not turn him human again but instead turns Tiana into a frog also. From here the two set off to find a cure to become normal again. There is also no witch in this movie to cast spells. As it is set in New Orleans, the culture of that area is also shown and the villain of the movie is actually voodoo doctor.

Normally Disney would just create a villain with some dark magical power but they have never gone as far as to use voodoo, which is an actual practice today. Along with that, the doctor petitions help (in song of course!)from "his friends on the other side". There are also shadowed ghosts who aid him in his evil devious plot.

Another voodoo doctor plays a big part in this movie but is put as a sort of a fairy Godmother. She is in fact a blind old lady, Mama Odie, who brings some laughter to the screen but still has all of the same "powers" of one who practices voodoo. Little kids might not know what voodoo is so it is probable that the idea may just go straight over their heads and be put as a mysterious magical power.


That is just about all that was wrong with the movie along with the fact of kissing a frog which is just gross. I would consider this a musical and fits well with all of other Disney movies, while still having a catchy style of its own thanks to composer Randy Newman. If you keep your eye out in the film you can also spot a few items from other Disney movies such as the magical flying carpet of "Aladdin".


Although most of the characters in this movie are relatively "unknowns", it does feature a few parts played by famous TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey, the voice actor of Winnie the Pooh and many others Jim Cummings and also the unmistakable voice of John Goodman. It may not be targeted directly towards my demographic but it seemed to do the job of the majority of the rest of the people that were in the theater. Little "princesses" and their mothers all gave the film an applause as the credits rolled. Very seldom do ever hear that sound of approval, and that is what really matters. My little sister was also very pleased and now adds princess "Tiana" to her favorites. She also said that she now wants some Gumbo.....

Everybody's Fine

Everybody's fine.
Really.
But are they happy?

These are some of the main questions that are intertwined throughout this flick starring Robert De Niro, Sam Rockwell, and Drew Barrymore.


In this movie review I will not be able to say too much without ruining it. In my opinion this fact makes a really good movie but it also makes it very hard on me to tell you about it. Most review sites such as Plugged In would tell you what happens and spoil the movie's plot (sometimes with a warning). I am sure that they do this in order to tell you what content is in the movie that you may want to be aware of. I am not going to do this though because I personally do not like it when a review ruins your cinema experience. I will still tell you of suggestive things but not with much detail that it will spoil the fun.

Robert De Niro plays Frank, a lonely father who is also a widow. When he tries to get his kids together(who are adults now), Frank's plans are put to a halt when the children all have various reasons to not being able to visit their father in despair. Since they could not find time to visit his house, he decides to go and visit them. This puts him on a sequence of events that teach him how to be a better father and also shows his understanding of modern life.

I like that this movie had nothing in it that was totally unbelievable. It was not too cheesy of a film and did not add in an action sequence for no reason. It was just a movie that felt like you really were there, as if you could feel the pain that Frank was feeling. That is true acting and gives a good presentation, not some mushy vampire-werewolf story, but like it is really happening in front of you. Although I highly doubt he will, I think De Niro deserves an Academy award for his part in this film.


There is a scene where there is very brief but obvious cussing of various sorts, a prostitute is seen in a short scene, and also a little mention of homosexuality but besides that the movie is clean. If these parts could be edited just a little, I am sure that this movie could earn a PG rating.

This movie may not be the most popular right now but it is certainly not something to overlook. If you don't want to see it now, at least plan on seeing it sometime in the future because it is simply a good movie and I cannot find anything wrong with it besides what I have already said above. If you are a parent I am recommending this to you, it will most likely inspire you. Although it is not a hopeful feel-good movie as the recent "The Blindside", but it is not as much of a depressing movie as "The Pursuit of Happyness" but still good quality and shows modern life on screen in one of the best forms I have seen.

November Poll

The results are in and it turns out that the option of "Other" has won out over the rest of the movies. I am not sure what you would have picked under other but I am guessing that based on the recent box office ratings, it would most likely be "The Blind Side", "Planet 51", "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Precious", or maybe a mix of all of them.

Three other movies have also tied for 2rd place. Those movie were "Michael Jackson's This Is It", "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and also "Sherlock Holmes." Although Sherlock Holmes has not been released yet, I think that the most profitable out of these three will obviously be "New Moon".

I now have another poll set up. This one is now asking what you think the most important attribute of a movie is. I know that I have already made a post about that but I would like to know what everyone else's opinion is on that.

The Blindside

A "Blind Side" in football terms is the spot where a quarterback cannot see. If this place is left unprotected then the quarterback is open to be squished flat by an opposing team member. That is where Michael "Big Mike" Oher comes in. Let us just say that if you wanted to be your bodyguard, he would be the guy you would want to pick.

After being taken away from his family when he was little, Michael traveled from foster home to foster home, being what the government calls "a runner". He was failing in his senior year of high school and had a very low GPA score, although he was not stupid. He was also found to be very protective of others and was really good at sports, considering that he had a giant body frame, but was still quick. With no one to watch him, he spent much of his life having to fend for himself.

Unfortunately no one really took notice of Michael's good qualities until he was taken in by a kind middle-class Christian family, the Tuohy's. They consisted of the parents, Leigh (Sandra Bullock) and Sean (Tim McGraw) and also two children, Collins and S.J. . They all accept Michael and help him succeed in life while giving him more than just the necessities of life, while he helps them grow closer together.

I went into this movie not really wanting to see it, I left pleased with it though. The main reason I did not really care to see it is because I thought it was just another one of those sports movies that try to inspire people. It actually makes the movie more lifelike when photos of the real Michael are shown over the credits. (The movie is based on a book, which is based on real-life events). The first half of the movie does not even show or mention football much. When it is finally shown more often, it does not show the games in great detail. The sports are included just for addition to the storyline. There is also a surprising twist in the story near the end of the film.


As for the acting, Bullock just did okay, Tim McGraw did better, and the best were actually the actors who portrayed Michael (Quinton Aaron) and S.J. (Jae Head). The soundtrack was not really noticeable, annoying or wonderful. There are a few moments of drinking, smoking, and also a few uses of some bad language, though no "F words" in it. Leigh actually don't say "the A word" to her family. During a car accident, there is some blood that is shown on the victims of the incident, though they are not bothered much by the injuries. At another point of the movie, it is mentioned briefly to Michael not to get a girl pregnant or else a certain private part will be cut off as a punishment. The camera also closely shows a married couple kissing each other on the face.

The story is a classic one that belongs in the heart of a movie lover right along with "The Pursuit of Happiness". If you are looking for a movie without explosions and just a quality movie this holiday, look no further for this is it.

Disney's A Christmas Carol

Here is yet another one of those movies based on a book! This time it is the another adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol". It was first published in 1843 and the buzz has not stopped since. There have been numerous versions of this movie put in cartoons, live-action movies, plays, operas, musicals, and also attempted prequels/sequels to the book. This story has been shown in so many ways that there are even books that exist just to tell you about the adaptions that "A Christmas Carol" has been turned into.

This book's storyline is well-known but in case you do not know it, I will try to describe it now while not ruining it. The book starts off with the death of Ebenezer Scrooge's business partner. It then skips 7 years later to show a greedy rude Scrooge who does not waste a single schilling on anything. On that Christmas Eve Scrooge is then visted by the ghost of his partner who is in heavy chains. The ghost then warns Scrooge that he will ge haunted by three ghosts that night. These 3 spirits are the bright ghost of Christmas past, the joyous ghost of Christmas present, and the dark and mysterious ghost of Christmas yet to come.

In this edition of the Disney adaptions, legendary director Robert Zemeckis takes control and uses his unique motion capture animation. To top that Jim Carrey takes the position as Scrooge and also plays quite a few other roles in this movie. His facial expressions really add to the characters he plays and brings more life to the movie. There is also a flashback that shows what Scrooge was like when he was younger. Using the motion capture makes young Scrooge looks just like Jim Carrey did in "The Truman Show".

Besides great casting, the animation is awesome! It is sort of cheating though because it uses real-life people in front of a green screen acting it out and then animation is layed over that (motion capture). Most of what is on screen is animation though, and it looks so real! The thing that I did not find right with this though is that Zemeckis is going through all of the trouble to make things look realistic but then he makes characters do unbelievable dance moves which ruins it a bit. The camera angles are some of the best I have seen for a movie and make you feel like you are really gliding through the sky. This could be because I saw it in IMAX 3D but I still think that it would have been pretty cool without it. What would a movie with such a title be without a few carols? A few songs such as "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" are included and even the main score for the movie is some sort of instrumental remix of "Deck The Halls". The makers of this were clearly not afraid of using anything religious which I give them bonus points for.


This movie may look like a good ol' family movie but it can be a scary at a few parts. There are the ghosts that I mentioned, but only 2 out of 4 of them I would consider scary. At one part, there are many tortured ghost seen floating around London and could really make a little kid want to scream. There is also a dead body shown as the first thing in the movie and a body is shown later on turning from flesh to skeleton to dust. There is no bad language in the film except for during a game of charades in which Scrooge briefly mentioned as the other name of a donkey. There is also nothing sexual in this movie.

To summarize it tops any other version of the story that I have ever seen. It is also the best film that I have seen in 3D. The 3D effects are really put to use and are worth the extra money if you have it. I don't think that this movie would be all that frightening when it comes out on DVD(or blu-ray), the largeness of the movie I think would really just creep a little one out.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

There sure are a lot of movies out right now that are based on books! I have posted about 2 of 3 already based on books plus this one. There are also at least 2 that I can think of right now that are currently in theaters that are based on a book.


The movie is about exactly what as it sounds and nothing much more. This film is based on a book by Jon Ronson who based his book on his encounter with the New Earth Army. This army run by the United States is a New Age, peace-loving, hippie group who believed that they could access supernatural powers that they could use for good. These powers include walking through walls, making clouds separate, changing minds of other people, and even killing animals just by staring at them.

The main character in the movie is a journalist based off of Ronson and played by Ewan McGregor. This is a great actor to cast for this movie as it makes quite a few references to Star Wars. For example, the New Earth Army soldiers are called "Jedi warriors" and there is also another hippie character in the film named Jango. There are also a number of quotes and motions that imply more references to the Star Wars movies. Not too many that it makes the movie a parody but just enough to make it funny.

The style of this movie is much like that you may find in a Cohen brothers movie (it is not though). It even has some of the same actors from movies like "The Ladykillers". George Clooney casted as another main character did an excellent job playing as a LSD-influenced psycho soldier of the New Earth Army. Kevin Spacey also plays the villain yet again in a film, but he was not that recognizable to me.


It is not really appropriate but it is made for laughs and entertainment, which is exactly what it did. The film included a lot of heavy cussing, and also some very brief nudity of male backsides. In addition there is drug use in the film, even to the point where an entire army base is sabotaged with LSD. You can only imagine what could happen when that base is also full of tanks. It does not promote the use of LSD but rather for laughs and to go with the story.

On the note of how the film shows psychic powers at use is hard to interpret if they wanted to show that this really could happen or not. At most moments(pretty much the whole movie) the New Earth Army is meant to be a big joke to everyone else and also the unbelievable powers that come with it. However, at a few key moments of the movie the powers are shown to work, but then again it could just be a coincidence, it is never said.

As I said earlier, this movie is just made for fun. It's not the best movie of the year, and will not win Academy Awards(except maybe for best actor...). I don't think that the crazy powers are much to be concerned about but you may want to take in mind the other suggestive content. After all just by the title this movie sounds like it is probably making fun of men who are staring at goats.

Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

"You may have seen a meteor shower, but I bet you've never seen a shower "meatier" than this."- Sam Sparks

So true. If you get hungry just from going to the grocery store, make sure you bring some snacks to this movie because delicious looking food is given screen time about 95% of the movie. Anything from hamburgers to ice cream to fortune cookies is shown as enormous proportions fall from the sky.


This movie is also loosely based on a book of the same name, but I can not compare it to that as I have not read it in a while, if ever. From what I can tell though, it looks like it takes the main idea from the book about food falling from the sky and then elaborates from there without ruining it like "Where the Wild Things Are" did.

The film follows inventor Flint Lockwood as he tries to create things that people will love. Finally he gets an opportunity when the city gets limited to eating only sardines, which as we all know, everyone hates sardines. Flint answers the problem with his invention called the Flint Lockwood Diatonic Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator (the FLDSMDFR)! At the sight of hamburgers falling from the sky, the city praises Flint's name and the isolated island get much needed public attention of this event by Weather reporter Sam Sparks.

The story does go further but I will not ruin it for you because this is a great movie. If you do not find this movie believable, then you are not getting the point. Like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, its not supposed to be believable, just fun and quirky. The animation and effects are also really great and and to the theme of the movie. The voices of the actors are also well casted featuring Bill Hader(SNL), Anna Faris, and also Neil Patrick Harris(Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog) as a Monkey with a thought translator. Mr. T even had a part in the film as a policeman, which I found as funny because his character had the opposite haircut that he really has.


Normally I found that Pixar films have a great story and graphics(Up, Toy Story) while Dreamworks movies are just funny with good graphics(Shrek, Madagascar)but Sony seems to have mixed both of these studio's specialties into one great family movie. There is minor cartoon violence, no nudity(except for a man in a diaper played by Andy Samberg), and no bad language unless you want to count crabballs as swearing. My little brother went also and he loved the movie. He gave it a 100,059 thumbs up. Unfortunately I am not Roger or Ebert so I do not do thumbs up(not that I am a genetic freak and I have that many thumbs) instead I use cute little stars as my rating system. This is simply just a fun, creative little movie that was born for a family pizza night.


Note: This film is also featured in 3D in some theaters but I did not see it in that format as I saw it much later than it was released.

Where the Wild Things Are

The background for this film is based on the 1963 Children's Classic book titled the same name as the film, written by author and illustrator Maurice Sendak. This picture book later went on to win the Caldecott Medal for 1964. Now it is known as a popular as a bedtime story and sold over 19 million copies by 2008.

Normally there are two ways films like this can go. Either one it will become a mega-hit like the Narnia and Lord of the Rings movies and actually follow the movie or else it will completely mess up the story and only follow the basic idea of the book. Unfortunately this goes more with the second option than the first.

While the original book's story involves a boy who gets sent to bed with no supper and travels to an imaginary land "where the wild things are". He then claims himself king and dances with joy with the monsters. The short book then ends with him returning home after missing his home. The new film follows this line but twists the parts in it to make the film very sad.

It is shown in the start of the film that the boy is a lonely kid, but he channels it wrong and throws a major tantrum of violence and comes off as just a bratty kid. From what in the book was just his imagination, in the movie he actually runs away from home and to a dock a takes a boat to find himself on the island of the wild things. Whether he imagined it or not (probably not) it is still wrong that he ran away. When he reaches the island he finds the wild things in a sad mess(look at the sondtrack cover above), and yet as he leaves them in the end, he still leaves as a seemingly even worse sad mess.

There is a considerable amount of violence in this film as the book had none in it. Sure they are wild but they are seen hurting each other without any emotion of apology. While there is no blood, a wild thing's arm is ripped off permanently by another wild thing.

To sum the whole thing up, the movie is sadder than even "A Series of Unfortunate Events" which was at least funny. If you think this is a children's movie, it shouldn't be. Sendak oversaw this project and approved all of it. Sadly, I think he could have done a much, much better job. The best thing that I saw with this film were the effects, but those were mostly just costumes.

Toy Story 3-D: Double Feature

During Thanksgiving weekend 1995 a little company named Pixar released a computer animated film called "Toy Story" starring Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. This became a mega-hit with the public and especially critics. It has also spawned 2 sequels, one of which is releasing next year. A spin-off TV show based on Buzz Lightyear has been released as well as Disneyland rides. I also saw a Disney production called "Toy Story on Ice" over 10 years ago.

This release is the same exact as the original movie, except for the fact that it is 3-D. Unlike movies such as Spy Kids 3-D, this flick does not really make the screen's motions pop out and "get you" but just add more volume to the film and make you feel like you are there. The 3-D trailers for Zemicks'"A Christmas Carol" "Toy Story 3" and Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" both used effects to make it look like it sticks out of the screen, but I am sure that it will not be used too much in the actual film. A new thing for Disney films is that 3-D glasses are not made with a red and a blue lens but with polarized lenses(seen in poster above, except it has 2 lenses, not 3.)

The film's basic plot involves toys that come to life when humans are not around. A cowboy doll named Woody is his human owner Andy's favorite toy but when Andy gets a popular new toy called the Buzz Lightyear, Woody starts to get jealous as he gets replaced. If you have not seen this film yet, I highly recommend it. It is a classic that is not directly morally wrong, or has any sort of bad humor, or questionable content.

This film is released into theaters for a short time and also features both Toy Story 1 and 2 with a 10 minute intermission between the films for the price of one ticket.

Note: I only saw the first movie in 3-D but I have seen the second one in theaters when it was released the first time, and it is a really good movie for being a sequel.

my flick reviews

Welcome everyone! This blog is built for movie reviews that have recently been released in theaters. I go quite often so I will be able to keep this updated to a point, for I do not see every single movie out there, especially, most rated "R" ones (example: Saw movies). If you want a review for every single movie out there you would be better off reading some other movie review site such as Plugged In. My reviews are put out here as just another review on a movie and not an ultimate source of movies.

Also my opinions are just my own. I am a Christian and have some of my own views so I may see some things as wrong that you might see as okay. I am just voicing my thoughts, if you have other ideas that is up to you. You can leave a comment under any of my posts and let my know how it was, post your opinion, or just say hi.=)I will keep this updated as long as I have time and people read it.