Robert Zemeckis’ A CHRISTMAS CAROL is an entertaining realization of the Charles Dickens classic, though it lacks the emotional punch of previous adaptations. Zemeckis has gotten much flack for his prior motion-capture (”mocap” for short) projects THE POLAR EXPRESS and BEOWULF, namely because critics have felt the process results in awkward, scary-looking characters with “dead eyes” and not much warmth. I didn’t see THE POLAR EXPRESS, but do remember thinking that the characters looked a little stiff and strange in the trailer as compared to other animated films of the Pixar or DreamWorks variety. BEOWULF was the first 3D film I’d seen (in 3D’s new incarnation–I remember seeing a couple of old 3D films as a kid with the cheapo paper-framed RGB-colored glasses) and I enjoyed it, but do admit its characters had an eerie feeling to them (Anthony Hopkins’ character both looked like him and didn’t simultaneously, and the 3D made it even weirder) and kept you at a distance emotionally.

In Zemeckis’ defense, comparing these films to Pixar’s, DreamWorks’ or Fox’s computer animated projects is like comparing crab apples and tangerines. Zemeckis uses actors to play these roles in real time (from Tom Hanks, Angelina Jolie and Ray Winstone to Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman) while a computer records all their movements, which are subsequently “animated over” using CGI technology (as opposed to using CG animation to create characters and movements from scratch, as is done by Pixar, et al). This is why the movement seems different and requires some getting used to, especially since audiences are accustomed to the more fluid animation of films like SHREK and THE INCREDIBLES. Mocap has been most notably used in THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy for the character of Gollum, in KING KONG for the beast himself, and for the alien Na’vi in James Cameron’s upcoming AVATAR (so excited to see that! Cameron prefers the process to be called “performance capture,” as he’s been able to capture every detail of an actor’s performance down to the subtlest of facial expressions.). However, Zemeckis’ method of mocap hasn’t resulted in as polished or fluid of an experience as has been achieved in the aforementioned films, which might be attributed to his films being in a totally animated world as opposed to taking one or a few mocap characters and placing them in live-action environments interacting with real objects and actors.

That said, A CHRISTMAS CAROL is a notable visual improvement upon Zemeckis’ previous mocap excursions, and the 3D is fantastic. I saw this film with my mom and sister, and it was their first time viewing a film in the “new” 3D. They were both blown away, and my mom kept lifting her glasses to see what the screen looked like normally. Her assessment: “Blurry.” There were at least four trailers for upcoming 3D films, and many more are in the pipeline. This format is here to stay: the premium ticket price has consistently boosted box office receipts and new 3D screens are being added every month around the world (if you’ve yet to see a film in 3D, try it sometime–it’s amazing and worth the few extra bucks). Now I’m going to read your mind: “Tell me about the darn film, Hoyland!” Ok, ok… Sheesh.

Jim Carrey gives a great performance as Scrooge and the various ghosts that haunt him (there are a few classically Carreyesque moments of physicality which will either annoy you if you’re not a fan or make you chuckle if you are; I must admit I’m in the latter group.), and the eerie feeling that Zemeckis’ mocap projects tend to have lends itself well to this story (once you see it, I dare you to tell me you weren’t freaked out when Scrooge comes home late Christmas Eve and walks up the staircase with nothing but a candle). What the film lacks is the emotional punch that other tellings of the story have had. Tiny Tim gets little screen time, and instead of drawing us into the more universally human aspects of the story, much time is given to visually stunning chase or flight scenes, all well and good for the 3D experience, but a death knell for the emotional core of the story. At the end of the day, A CHRISTMAS CAROL is worth the ride, but don’t expect the tear-jerker you may have experienced on television in years past.

WANTED is an action-packed film that wants to be THE MATRIX with echoes of FIGHT CLUB, but ends up just being a gunfest that teeters on the edge of B-moviedom. Now that first sentence may give the impression that I hated the film, but that’s not the case. I didn’t love it, but it has its moments and it certainly keeps your attention from beginning to end. The action and stunts are very well choreographed, but like so many other films these days, the story just doesn’t quite get us invested enough, and unfortunately James McAvoy doesn’t have the chops or presence to really get us on his side.

One thing you didn’t see in the trailers is the terrible voiceover that McAvoy has in much of the beginning of the film. Voiceover in general is a bad idea, mainly because good voiceover is hard to do (GOODFELLAS comes to mind as an example of good voiceover that integrates with the film effectively, but I can’t think of much else right now), but WANTED’s voiceover is especially egregious, almost to the point where it just takes you out of the film and makes you want to just run out and see something else. A very amateurish feel to it. Another side thought that just came to mind regarding voiceover: television overuses voiceover and has perhaps contributed to its seeming out of place in film (UGLY BETTY, GREY’S ANATOMY, SEX AND THE CITY…and hey, why is it that all the female-driven shows have voiceover? Kinda odd…). Basically, voiceover is a writer’s crutch, and good writers shouldn’t need voiceover to move a story forward, or give us backstory for that matter. I digress…

So were all the coolest parts of WANTED revealed in the trailer? Yeah, pretty much. There were a few surprises, and like I said, the film is entertaining, but just don’t expect a tour de force action film. It doesn’t break any new ground, it’s a bit bloodier than I expected (not exactly a date movie) and in fact is more like a Jason Statham flick than it is a film that you’d think Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman and Terence Stamp would be in.

In all honesty, my review for this film could be summed up in two words:

What happened?

THE HAPPENING should be the nail in M. Night Shyamalan’s professional career coffin. So much is wrong with this film that it’s hard for me to figure out where to begin. The best part of it is the opening credit sequence, which is striking due to its great score combined with visuals of a calm sky that turns progressively darker. After that, it’s all downhill. And I mean all downhill.

I will give Shyamalan this: it’s an interesting concept (spoilers coming, so don’t read if you plan to see it. But trust me, don’t see it! You’ll want that hour and a half of your life back someday!). Basically nature decides to turn on man to protect itself. How so? Well plant life starts to emit a chemical that we breathe in that re-wires our brains so that we, in essence, kill ourselves. Mass suicide. So from the start of the film we get to witness people committing suicide in various ways, from stabbing, shooting and hanging themselves to flinging themselves off the top of buildings (which occurs at a construction site in New York City. Shyamalan’s choice to have this take place here was obviously a bad one. Yeah I know it’s been seven years, but, um, it’s still too soon).

Although the concept is interesting at face value, it presents some sticky problems when it comes to translating this into a gripping film. The main problem is that the enemy is invisible and virtually unstoppable. We’re talking about a gas emitted by plants that we breathe in. So yes, you get scenes of Mark Wahlberg trying to outrun wind. Sounds fun, doesn’t it? The other issue is that, after the first few suicides, we really, really get tired of seeing people offing themselves. I like going to movies to be entertained, and watching dozens of people take their own lives in different ways just isn’t entertaining to me. And no, I’ve never seen “Faces of Death” either.

On top of these problems, the actors just don’t have much to work with. I haven’t seen much of Zooey Deschanel, but she’s horrible in this. Shyamalan should’ve at least seen that she needed some more direction, but this is, once again, a testament to his lack of skill in crafting even the simplest of scenes. It’s hard to believe that the writer/director of THE SIXTH SENSE, one of the best films of the nineties, has slipped to such a low in his work. It’s baffling, actually. And how, you may ask, do the heroes survive this deadly attack by nature? Well, nature simply stops. That’s right, it just stops happening. For no reason. Sheer luck. And our stars just go on with their lives. Now that’s great moviemaking (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is a well-made superhero action film, but only in its superhero action. While HULK has great fight scenes, great effects, and great pacing, it lacks IRON MAN’s charm, X-MEN 2’s energy, and THE DARK KNIGHT’s raw grit. This may be because Marvel Studios wanted to reboot Ang Lee’s HULK from five years ago, and one of its mantras was to beef up the action. It definitely accomplished this, but failed to really give us a reason to care for Bruce Banner, who is aptly portrayed by Edward Norton. While Norton does a good job, the script doesn’t give him much to do except run. He spends a good portion of the film being pursued, and we come into the story right in the middle of it. This in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, but the script never allows us to really feel Banner’s pain. We’re always on the outside looking in, never quite with Norton enough to truly be invested in his predicament. In some sense, Tim Roth’s character is more fleshed out than Norton’s.

On a side note, I live just blocks away from the Harlem street where the final battle scene between Norton and Roth’s alter egos takes place, and let me just say that if it were as bright as it was in the film, it’d be Times Square up here. THE INCREDIBLE HULK delivers what all the fanboys want to see (the Hulk kicking ass, action, not too much talking), but it’s nowhere near the bar that IRON MAN and THE DARK KNIGHT have recently set for superhero films henceforth.

First off, I never saw THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE, so I went into this film with virtually no knowledge of what was going on. However, I enjoyed this film for its action and superb visual effects.

The story is rather thin, so if you’re looking for something that will engage you mentally, this won’t fit the bill. What you will get in PRINCE CASPIAN is almost wall-to-wall action between humans and Narnians, who are fantastical creatures of varying shapes and sizes, most notably centaurs, griffins and animals who can walk and talk, including a mouse who’s pretty darn good with his rapier.

At the end of the day, PRINCE CASPIAN is a forgettable film that doesn’t warrant much discussion (it’s a lesser version of HARRY POTTER, mainly because it doesn’t have much heart), but it is a decent way to get rid of two and a half hours on a Friday night.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is a film that, after viewing it, I probably would’ve preferred that it had never been made. Just like the disappointing new trilogy of the STAR WARS series, this (hopefully) last installment of the INDIANA JONES series fails to capture the magic of the original films. George Lucas was quoted as saying that it’s impossible to live up to the hype, no matter how good the film turns out to be. I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, this film turned out to be a dull, by-the-numbers sequel that even the actors seemed to walk through.

Find me one person in the world who wouldn’t want to see Harrison Ford in that hat again. You’ll be looking for a long time. So of course it’s great to see Ford in this role again, but his performance seemed a bit wooden. One of my first thoughts after the film was that it was like seeing Frank Sinatra in his later years in Vegas–yeah it was still Frank, but he just seemed to be going through the motions. It sucks to see Ford like this, and it contributed to the lack of real fun in the film. I also thought, maybe Ford was trying to portray an older Indy, and that’s where his performance was coming from? If that’s the case, I commend them, but it didn’t fully play because physically he was still accomplishing 90% of the things that he did in the previous films, so it was confusing to see a “mellower” Indy when he wasn’t kicking ass and then to see a pretty spry Indy while he was. It just didn’t ring true.

One highly anticipated aspect of this film was the return of Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen. This anticipation is never really satisfied, though–when Ford and Allen are first reunited onscreen, their exchange dreadfully lacks the spark that was so evidently there in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Cate Blanchett’s villainous role seems a bit silly, and I never really felt that Indy was in any real danger from her, or that he felt he was in any danger. Surprisingly enough, Shia LaBeouf turns out to give the most seemingly natural performance in the film.

As hard as I’ve come down on the actors, ultimately it’s the story and script that are the major culprits in this film having turned out to be a big disappointment. Plot-wise, the mystery that Indy is trying to solve and the legend that accompanies it is not only too complicated, but also terribly unrealistic and seems not to fit into an Indiana Jones film. Granted, there were supernatural elements in all of the previous films, but this time around it crosses a line that I just didn’t buy, or that I didn’t want to buy in an Indiana Jones film. It’s been said that Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford were against the original idea when George Lucas first pitched it, and it took a few years to bring them around. Well, they should’ve stuck with their original instincts. Also, the legend was just too complicated for us to really care about, and it was hard to get why Indy himself even cared about it. One scene of dialogue and all of a sudden Indy’s ready to get back into action. I’ve always felt that in stories made for the big screen, simplicity is always best. This INDIANA JONES film tries to cram too much information in, and it backfires big time. Regarding the action sequences, they were well done, but without strong tension and a clear reason why we should care about Indy’s mission, the action scenes lacked the punch that worked so well in the original films (especially RAIDERS).

Well was there anything good about the film? Sure, a few things. But they were swallowed by the overall failure of the script to really draw us in and make us care about this story, in essence, Indy’s last mission before he retires into the sunset. In parting I hope that your reading of this review will lower your expectations enough to at least enjoy the film more than I did.

UPDATE: So I saw the film a second time yesterday, and I didn’t hate it quite as much as I did the first time. I still stand behind most of my comments, though I think Harrison Ford’s performance was a bit better than I had originally thought. My friend Charlie said he had the same overall reaction to the film upon his second viewing and stated that once you get over the disappointment of seeing it the first time, there’s nowhere to go but up. Anyway, I think this latest addition to the INDIANA JONES series will be considered the worst of the four, but it does provide entertainment for those who don’t quite have so much invested in the character and the series.

So what can I say about this film? Well, if it were a sports team it’d be the San Antonio Spurs (as much as I hate the Spurs), who have been one of the most solid, consistent teams of the past decade–they’ve always made the right decisions, have a great foundation, and have won multiple championships. In essence, IRON MAN does the same things:

Story/directorial/casting decisions: Great.

Story foundation: Rock solid.

Championships? Well, in the film industry, let’s call that “box office prowess.” Well how’s $100 million the first weekend and $50 million the second weekend? Kicking SPEED RACER’s butt back into the last Millennium.

The real anchor of this film is Robert Downey, Jr. His performance is great–not too over-the-top, not lazy, but just right there in the sweet spot. He takes this role seriously, and it shows. And this is perhaps director Jon Favreau’s triumph in this film–deciding to cast “serious,” accomplished actors in this “oh great here’s another comic book” movie. Alongside Downey are Gwyneth Paltrow (who looks fantastic–I think she gained a little weight and she’s absolutely stunning now), Terrence Howard, and Jeff Bridges. ‘Nuff said.

After the film, two “mature” ladies behind me were commenting how they loved seeing the progression of a character “creating/inventing his own superhero” onscreen. This is definitely a cool thing to behold (and it’s very telling that two mature women were raving about the film. They weren’t in IRON MAN’s demographic, yet it appeals to them as well). The development of Iron Man in the film is done in such a realistic, interesting way that it’ll be hard for any other superhero film to top it as far as an origin story is concerned.

The action was good, but perhaps a little lacking compared to other films of its type. However, this didn’t detract from the film, mainly because we love Downey so much and are so invested in these characters that it’s just as exciting to see him in a room conducting a press conference as it is to see him in armor trying to outrun two fighter jets.

I highly recommend this film and applaud Marvel Studios for a resounding success in its first independently-made movie. Favreau and Downey deserve major kudos as well, and I look forward to seeing Downey again in TROPIC THUNDER, which looks like it will feature another great performance by one of our modern, albeit troubled, master thespians. One final note is that the worst scene of this film happens to come after the end credits–another great decision by the filmmakers.

Ok so I must admit that I saw this film months ago, around mid-February, so my memory of it has faded a bit. What I do know is that perhaps the hype on it affected my view, which wasn’t a horrible one, but wasn’t stellar either, which is what most critics agreed that the film was.

I remember hearing a lot about Ellen Page’s performance, which I admit was good, but there was an element of the character that I felt was a bit too “spot on” as far as dialogue was concerned. She seemed to know exactly what to say at every moment, and perhaps a bit too smart for her age. In other words, I felt like I could hear the writer’s words coming out of her mouth, as opposed to being immersed in the believability of her character.

By contrast, I was much more impressed with Michael Cera’s and Jennifer Garner’s performances. They both seemed extremely genuine, and I was more surprised by Garner since I haven’t been a huge fan of her thespian abilities.

The story itself was ingenious in its simplicity, and this film is really more about its characters and situations than about its plot. Jason Reitman’s direction is good–he knows that Page and his other actors are what’s going to make this film work, so he lets them do their thing.

At the end of the day, I enjoyed the film, and would recommend it. I just feel a bit sad that in today’s industry, JUNO is what it takes to win a Best Original Screenplay Academy Award. Perhaps I should feel more encouraged instead.

So about ten years ago I learned that certain first-person shooter video games make me nauseous. Last night I learned that certain movies make me nauseous. Let me amend that sentence… one movie makes me nauseous. And that movie is CLOVERFIELD. Mind you, I’m not trying to be facetious here. The film really made me nauseous. So much so that I actually vomited at the end of the movie, into my popcorn bag, and had to leave the theatre to finish vomiting into a trash can in the hallway. It wasn’t pretty, and quite honestly, it really pissed me off.

“Oh Hoyland you were just sick, don’t blame it on the movie.” I’m sure some of you are thinking that right now. But I know myself, and within the first five minutes of CLOVERFIELD, I realized that the jerky, non-professional home video-style camera movements were not going to bode well for me over an hour and a half. I chose to stick with it, though, and try to make it to the end. Mainly because I was super curious to see the monster, and see what was going to happen, since we really only got the first few minutes of the attack in the trailer. So I wanted to weather it through. I never check the time during a movie, but in this one I had to, because I needed to mentally prepare myself for the time required to just sit there and get to the end without hurling. I had my little methods of getting through–like covering my eyes periodically, mainly during dialogue scenes since I didn’t want to miss any of the action. Breathing slowly. Belching. Anything I could do to just keep the nausea at bay without having to leave mid-way through. My methods worked pretty well, but, as mentioned earlier, I ended up stepping out with only about 2 minutes left in the movie. I don’t think I missed anything important in those 2 minutes, but it would’ve been nice to have seen them, given my sacrifice. Alright so enough about my nausea and what caused it (whoever decided to shoot the film like that, if you’re reading this, at least reimburse me for the popcorn and soda)…let me get to some other aspects of the film.

I thought the concept was great. It’s basically a monster-attacks-city movie, but all from the perspective of the little bystanders, and played for total realism. The effects were great–very seamless. As real as you can get. I AM LEGEND should’ve used these guys. Lastly, even though this has nothing to do with the movie itself, I must give props to the marketing team for it. The strategy was brilliant and translated to the biggest January opening ever ($40 million for the 3 day weekend, $46 including the holiday).

Basically, I felt that the concept, the effects, and the marketing were all perfect, but the movie was ruined by the horrible camera work. I’m curious to know if I’m the only one who was literally sickened by it. I’d be raving about the film if it weren’t for that. Instead, I’ll have to advise to steer clear, unless you take some Dramamine beforehand. Now that I think about it, this film looked just like one of those first-person shooter games, except the actors didn’t have guns. That’s the best I can describe it–you feel like you’re watching a video game for an hour and a half. A really jerky one. I’m still nauseous just thinking about it, so I’ll have to wrap this review up here. J.J. Abrams, wherever you are, can you send me $10.50 for my concessions?

Just recently saw BLADES OF GLORY on DVD. It’s Will Ferrell doing his usual schtick, but this time… on ice!!! This movie definitely has some laughs, and is a great rental to just get and goof along with. But is it a classic? No way. And I got the sense that, for the first time, Will Ferrell movies are now officially starting to blend together. His performances are starting to look the same, the jokes seem to be the same, and, thus, the comedy is starting to recycle itself. Now don’t get me wrong, I think Ferrell’s great. I just think he’s pegged himself into a certain formula that’s starting to not look so fresh anymore. He needs to change it up a bit. Yes, there’s a newsroom. There’s NASCAR. There’s ice. And next is basketball. But changing the venue alone doesn’t make great comedy. I’d like to see him stretch himself a bit more, and challenge all aspects of the script, especially the jokes. I mean, shouldn’t we all leave a Will Ferrell movie with our sides aching from laughter? That just hasn’t happened in a long time. The potential’s always there, but his movies have fallen short of it, including this one… on ice!!!