The Best Films of 2009

It's hard for me to classify 2009. I've only been alive for 23 years and am still yet to see many of the great classic films. Throughout this whole year, as I watched and wrote about all of the movies on this blog, I could only take away from them the knowledge I brought into them. I can't always compare this movie to that or that movie to this, so it's hard for me to say how well 2009 stacks up compared to other movie years. That's where I turn to Roger Ebert. Recently, on his Twitter account, he said that 2009 ranks right up there with 1939 and 1976 as particularly memorable. That's saying a lot and I'm inclined to agree. Putting this top ten list together was brutal because so many excellent movies were released that I simply couldn't fit on here. I've compiled it, rearranged movies and switched some in and out and I am just now comfortable with my choices. This isn't the end all, be all "best of" list on the Internet (and I implore you to seek out others as well), but for better or worse, these are the best films of 2009.

10. Up (read my review here)—I thought long and hard about this number 10 spot. There were so many films deserving of it that I couldn't choose just one. For a while, my list began with Precious, then I switched it to Inglourious Basterds, then District 9, and most recently I even considered Sherlock Holmes, but none of those made me feel the unadulterated joy and sadness that Up did. While Precious was certainly a hard hitting drama and put me through a whirlwind of emotions, I came out depressed, but Up made me simultaneously cry like a little baby and smile like I had just seen an angel. It tapped into every emotion it possibly could and delivered one of the most breathtaking experiences at the cinema I've had all year. Hell, just the opening montage alone that goes through Carl's entire life from childhood to marriage to the death of his wife is reason enough to place it on this list. I've seen plenty of beautiful things at the movies throughout the course of my life, but I've never seen anything more beautiful than that. Up is more than just an opening montage, however. It's full of life and feeling and love and passion. It's imaginative and vividly detailed with computer animation unrivaled in the animation world. This is the tenth film from the geniuses over at Pixar and it's their tenth success. While this isn't their best film (Wall-E and Finding Nemo are far better), Up fits comfortably in their filmography and rightfully deserves a spot on this list.

9. The Hangover (read my review here)—Every good "best of the year" list needs a good comedy. If I'm being honest with myself, there were better movies to come out this year (like the ones mentioned alongside Up), but there's nothing more fulfilling than going to the movies and laughing your face off, so I like to give credit where credit is due. This year saw some great comedies—I Love You, Man, Adventureland, The Invention of Lying, Bruno, Zombieland and of course, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li—but none were as funny as The Hangover. The film featured an excellent cast of Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper and the hilarious Zach Galifianakis and their chemistry together was what made this movie. I usually feel like most sequels to comedies are unnecessary, but this was one of the first times I absolutely demanded one because the trio are simply superb together. Although The Hangover isn't as unique as The Invention of Lying and isn't as shocking as Bruno, the care put into its creation is far better. Todd Phillips, director of frat boy favorites Road Trip and Old School puts his own style on the proceedings and crafts an authentic feeling out of an outlandish situation. It's over the top and it may not have the heart that Adventureland did, but you'll be gasping for breath from laughing so hard. The Hangover is that funny.

8. Up in the Air (read my review here)—I originally intended to put Michael Moore's wonderful new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story in this spot because much like how I feel every good "best of" list needs a comedy, I also feel like it needs a good documentary, but despite my affection for what Moore was saying in his movie, Up in the Air needs recognition and I refuse to take any of the other films off my list. Sorry Mike! Seemingly coming out of nowhere, I saw Up in the Air about a month before its release, having never seen a trailer and no idea what it was about. All I knew was that it starred the always reliable George Clooney and was being directed by Jason Reitman, who also helmed Thank You for Smoking and the wonderful Juno. Just like those two films, Up in the Air is a subtle picture with jokes that aren't always laugh out loud funny, but remain amusing nonetheless. Also like those two films, this one holds deeper meaning and finds the extraordinary in the mundane. It's simply amazing to see how deep human emotion can go and Clooney's character pushes his to the fullest. He's a loner, an individual who by the end of the movie realizes that he's flown all over the world, but has never truly been anywhere because he's been traveling alone. There's also a social commentary in Up in the Air about corporate downsizing that cements its relevancy in today's society. Some are claiming this to be the best movie of the year, including the National Board of Review and WAFCA (Washington Area Film Critics Association). It's not, hence the eight spot, but it's a delight nonetheless and a wonderful cinematic achievement.

7. The Brothers Bloom (read my review here)—Perhaps the most underappreciated movie on this list, The Brothers Bloom received mediocre reviews, resting at only 64% on Rotten Tomatoes, and made very little money at the box office (not even $5 million worldwide). For the life of me I cannot figure out why. It has everything you could want; laughs, emotion, great performances, wonderful direction, a witty script and a story that twists and turns every which way without cheating you or becoming too confusing. The Brothers Bloom takes every facet of good filmmaking and combines them nearly flawlessly. Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo play the two brothers, conmen who have gained riches through the years due to their elaborate cons. Their latest scheme is to con Penelope, played by the effervescent Rachel Weisz, but Brody starts to fall in love with her, putting a kink in their plans. This seemingly simple story is carried out with aplomb and goes in directions you won't ever see coming. At one point, it seems like the film is wrapping up, which would have been fine because everything up to that point was wonderful, but it goes the extra mile and lengthens the story, including even more twists and cons, to the point where the film starts to con you. As I said in my review, when most movies do this, they get off track and lose themselves, but this one keeps you with it and now that I think about it, I can't see it ending any other way. Too many people passed by this one. Don't make the same mistake.

6. Star Trek (read my review here)—What a disappointing summer it was for big budget action blockbusters. X-Men Origins: Wolverine failed to live up to the standards the previous X-Men trilogy had set (yes, I liked the third one too), as was the case with Terminator Salvation. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was similarly a waste of time, offering nothing in the way of competent filmmaking, though none of those matched the putrid stench of the horrid Michael Bay travesty, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a film that very easily made my worst of the year list (click here to read it). The only one that had any merit at all was Star Trek and it wasn't just a good action flick; it was a great one. It's not on this list because it was the only one done competently. It's on this list because it truly deserves it. From the look of the film to the acting to the brilliant use of Leonard Nimoy, who played Spock in the original series and whom the filmmakers fit perfectly into the story instead of placing him in as a distracting cameo, this is an amazing production. What Star Trek does so flawlessly is bridge that gap between fans and non-fans. I brought my father to the screening for this movie and we couldn't be more opposite. He loves the franchise and I hate it, but we both sat there like little children in awe of what we were seeing. If you want pulse pounding excitement along with character development and an excellent storyline, you want to see Star Trek.

5. The Road (read my review here)—Here's another criminally underappreciated film on the list, making very little money due to its extremely limited release. While this isn't as underrated as The Brothers Bloom, it still didn't get the recognition it deserved. The Road is haunting and bleak, yet beautiful. It's depressing, but surprisingly optimistic. It's a film that will make you realize how fragile our lives really are. The Earth has been around for billions of years (sorry Mike Huckabee, you're wrong) and most of us live for less than a hundred. Our time on this planet is very short and if nothing else, The Road teaches us to value that time and acts as a warning that if we don't shape up, things are going to take a turn for the worse. It's a movie that looks incredibly simple on the surface. The story revolves around a father and son in a post-apocalyptic landscape venturing south in hopes of finding a better place to live, but that simplification would be missing the point. There are many themes present in this movie and it explores the dichotomy of life and death, explaining that in certain situations, the line between the two can blur. Some people don't like these types of movies due to their depressing nature, but I love them because they are usually the ones that have the most to say. Bad things do happen. Our existence isn't all butterflies and sunshine and The Road knows it.

4. Ponyo (read my review here)—I'm a self proclaimed animation junkie. I've always been one to adore the magic that shines through in the art form. Animation has no limitations. You can allow your imagination to run wild when crafting an animated movie and animation master Hayao Miyazaki seems to be the only person outside of the folks at Pixar and Dreamworks who knows it. Miyazaki is widely regarded as the best person working in animation and his talent shines through in his latest effort, Ponyo, a magical visual wonder that rivals anything Pixar has ever done. Although this isn't quite as good as Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which is hands down the best animated movie I've ever seen, it's so close to perfect I'd be shocked to hear anybody say they have any real major qualms with it. Much like this year's The Princess and the Frog (which you can read my review of right here), Ponyo is a throwback to old school 2D animation and it is exquisite. We've all become so watered down by computer animated movies that this forgotten art form almost seems like a delicacy, but this movie uses it to its fullest effect. On top of all of this, there's a strong sense of humanity in the film because the story is centered around young love between the two children with their connection being the only thing that can save the world from a collision with the moon. It sounds odd, and it is, but it's carried out with such efficiency that I guarantee you'll fall in love with it.

3. Where the Wild Things Are (read my review here)—As part of my duties on BDK's Movie Show over at 106.7 WJFK HD2, I put together my five favorite movies of the decade, films that I think define this generation. It's a difficult task and it took some thought, but one I knew I wanted to put on there was Where the Wild Things Are. Now, you may be asking, "If it's in your top five of the decade, why is it only at number three for the year?" It's a valid question, so allow me to explain. Although I believe the two upcoming movies are better, I don't think that 10 years from now we will look back on them and remember them for how special they were. Their relevancy will fade and their meaning will lose impact, but Where the Wild Things Are will not. In 10 years, I'll still be watching this, appreciating its beauty, feeling sadness from its heartfelt story and discovering new themes and meanings, of which there are many. This is a movie that shows childhood realistically. Too many people think of children as young, naïve, innocent creatures that have no real emotion, which is entirely untrue. Where the Wild Things Are taps into their true nature, showing their happiness as well as their feelings of rage, pain and loneliness. It's an intellectually challenging movie and is now one of my favorites. Director Spike Jonze created his masterpiece in Where the Wild Things Are.

2. The Hurt Locker (read my review here)—Movies set around the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't done too well at the box office. Although I can only speculate, I think it is because most audiences, regardless of their political affiliation, don't want to be preached to. They don't want to hear that war is bad and that we shouldn't be fighting. They go to the movies to escape, not to be reminded of the violence that erupts daily and the dead that result from it. However, The Hurt Locker isn't one of those movies. It doesn't preach an anti-war message. In fact, it's completely non-partisan. What it does is examine the effect war has on the soldiers who fight it, a cause anybody can get behind regardless of whether you lean to the left or the right. Although you could easily classify it as an action film, The Hurt Locker is not fun to watch. This action film is visceral, violent and realistic, placing you in the battlefield with the soldiers and showing you the atrocities of war close-up. As I noted in my review, the opening to this movie was, and still is, the most intense and riveting scene I've seen since the coin flip scene in No Country for Old Men. The film is a tad too long and could have been trimmed a bit, but if that's my only complaint, you can get a good idea of the film's overall quality. The Hurt Locker is the best Iraq war themed movie to ever be released and no matter whether you're for the war or against it, you need to see this film.

1. 500 Days of Summer (read my review here)—When I walked out of The Hurt Locker, I thought to myself, "This is the best movie of the year. It's going to be tough for any movie to knock this one down from the number one spot." Then one week later I saw 500 Days of Summer and displaced those thoughts immediately. The film stars the charismatic Joseph Gordon-Levitt and absolutely adorable Zooey Deschanel as Tom and Summer, respectively, and it chronicles the 500 days that Summer is in Tom's life. It's a roller coaster of emotion and we go through the good times with Tom as well as the bad, but the reason this works so well is because we aren't watching it from an outsider's perspective as we do in other romance movies. We are seeing it through the eyes of Tom and come to feel as he does. The world looks so much brighter when their relationship is going well and bleak when things go bad. There are few romantic comedies that can stand the test of time (or even be considered good in the moment), but 500 Days of Summer is one of them and should go down alongside When Harry Met Sally as one of the best ever. Who would have thought that in a year with so many terrific films that a romantic comedy would be in the number one spot? I certainly didn't, but 500 Days of Summer truly deserves it.

The Worst Films of 2009

Last year, I compiled lists of what I considered to be the best and worst of the year. However, I had not seen every movie. I had only seen a select few, so it was hard to produce accurate lists. This year, thanks to my duties over on BDK's Movie Show, I've seen and written about nearly every one. I was slow on the uptake, writing a combined 12 reviews for January and February due to a hectic schedule, but I had seen each movie and since then, I've dedicated myself to writing about each and every film I see regardless of how busy I am. Why do I say this? I say this because this is the best, most comprehensive list I could come up with after having seen a good 175 movies this year (give or take a few). A lot of crap was released in 2009 and it wasn't easy compiling this, but in the end these films stand head and shoulders above the rest. These are the 10 worst films of 2009.

10. Fighting (read my review here)—Full disclosure: I am not a fighting fan. I can't stand UFC and I've never understood the fascination with watching two shirtless, sweaty men beat each other senseless. I'd rather watch a romance (shut up). But if that sounds like a good time to you and you don't care about good acting, a meaningful story, or competent direction, then you might like Fighting, but I found it to be one of the most excruciating experiences I had in a theater this year. The film follows Shawn MacArthur, played by bad actor Channing Tatum, a young man forced to live on the streets and sell fake versions of the new Harry Potter book. One day, a man named Harvey, played horrifically by Terrence Howard, takes notice and enters him into an underground fighting organization where he rises through the ranks and earns money by kicking as much ass as he possibly can. If the banality of the film's simple one word title didn't tip you off, Fighting is about as unimaginative as they come and nothing happens the entire film. In my review, I related this movie to a NASCAR race because much like one of those races, you watch it move for two hours only to realize it's gone nowhere. Perhaps the filmmakers weren't aware that most movies have a little something called story arc. To once again quote my review, "The only fight you'll have in Fighting is the fight to stay awake." That about sums it up.

9. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li (read my review here)—Ok, I'll be honest with you. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li should be much higher on this list, probably at number two ranked only behind the foulest most brain deadening movie to be released this year (more on that later), but you know what? It's absolutely hilarious. Unlike the movies up higher on this list, Street Fighter is so bad, it's actually pretty damn good. I haven't laughed so hard in a theater all year. The Hangover and Bruno have nothing on Street Fighter. You want to laugh? Invite some friends over, pop this bad boy in, have a couple of beers and provide your own commentary, which is precisely what I did once it hit DVD. Though it wasn't quite as funny the second time around due to my knowledge of what was coming next, I'll never forget the stomach cramps I received from my incessant laughter. In theory, it should probably be on my best of the year list, but I refuse to count unintentional hilarity as a positive trait and thus, here it is. Featuring an epically bad performance from Chris Klein, of which will go down in history as one of the worst ever, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li is devoid of a single positive trait. I actually wrote this review for my school paper, Broadside, but it was cut for unspecified reasons, though I later found out why. As I discussed the characters and how poorly written they were, I wrote this line which was deemed too offensive: "To call them thin would be an insult to anorexia." I stand by that.

8. All About Steve (read my review here)—It was a good year for Sandra Bullock. She first starred in the commercially successful (critically, not so much) The Proposal, which offered a few laughs and decent chemistry between her and her co-star, Ryan Reynolds. She also recently starred in the surprise hit, The Blind Side, which is still playing as of the time of this writing and has banked a running domestic gross of over $130 million on a $29 million budget. It actually dethroned the teenage schlock-fest New Moon in its third week of release and it was even pretty good to boot (read my review of it here). But in between those two lies the release of All About Steve, a vapid alleged "comedy" that I'm positive was summoned from the depths of Hell to torment me. The largest problem with the film is that Mary, played by Bullock, is a psychotic leech who latches herself onto Steve, played by Bradley Cooper coming off of his mega-hit The Hangover. She's a crossword constructor for her local paper and upon meeting Steve, she instantly falls in love and writes her next crossword all about Steve, with each clue pertaining to a different aspect of the man. If that isn't obsessively creepy, I don't know what is. When the central character of your movie is as mentally unstable as Mary, nothing can redeem it. Case in point with All About Steve.

7. Next Day Air (read my review here)—As I began to compile this list, I had a good idea of what movies I wanted to include. My top five were already locked and there were a handful of contenders for the bottom half, so as I scoured my archives looking for films that could could potentially fit on the list, I ran across Next Day Air and realized I had completely forgotten about it. I couldn't remember much about the film, but then I saw my title for the post: "Next Day Air - One of the Worst Movies of the Year," so I thought, "Well, I guess I have to include it now." I'm glad I did. As I read over my review and dug deep to recollect my thoughts on it, I realized how putrid it had been. This is a film that makes light of drug smuggling and violence and the story goes absolutely nowhere. The end climax of this disaster is a bloody shootout over a box of cocaine which results in the death of every character except for two, one of whom escapes with the coke and the other whom escapes with the money. One particular grisly death ends with a knife to the throat. Oh and this is a comedy. Sounds funny, huh? No? Well, you're right. It's not. There isn't a laugh to be had in the entire film because drug smuggling and gratuitous violence are not funny. Not to mention the lack of respect for human individuality that was present in the film, which consisted of numerous stereotypes of various ethnicities, including one Latino woman whose dialogue was laden with words like "ese" and "muchacho" in between her English. How fresh. Believe it or not, it's not the worst show of racism to occur in a movie this year, but it's damn close. You can expect to see this one in the $2.99 bargain bin any day now.

6. The Collector (read my review here)—The Collector is another movie, much like Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li that is so bad, it's actually kind of entertaining. I saw this in a similar situation as Street Fighter, with a couple of buddies, and when the movie was over we ripped it a new one, making a list of flaws and inconsistencies that would be pages long had we taken the time to write them all down. The Collector was written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the writers behind Saw IV, V, VI and the upcoming Saw VII 3D (no joke) and was meant to be a prequel to that successful franchise, but the movie studio didn't want a prequel and instead the film was greenlit as its own beast, and what a beast it is. The Collector is a violent, mean spirited train wreck of a film with zero logic and a "mystery" killer that's as obvious as any whodunit I've ever seen. Within the first five minutes, I could have told everybody in the theater who the killer was because it's telegraphed with such clarity that not a doubt was left in my mind. To describe the many plot holes in the film would require detailing the entire plot, which is not prudent for this small space. All you need to know is that the film takes place all in one day and the killer sets up dozens of elaborate traps all throughout an empty house by nightfall, including a staircase to nowhere with nails literally embedded in it; not just placed there, but built into the wood. He does all of this in a matter of hours. What a stupid movie.

5. Land of the Lost (read my review here)—An open letter to Will Ferrell:

Dear Mr. Ferrell,

My name is Joshua Hylton and I used to be a big fan of yours. You were hilarious on "Saturday Night Live" and your first major big screen endeavors were enjoyable enough to sit through. However, it has become abundantly clear in the last few years that you work better as a side character than the star. Look at some of the best movies you've been in—Old School, the first two Austin Powers movies, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Wedding Crashers—you were great in those and you promised great things to come, but then you did Elf...and Blades of Glory...and Bewitched...and Semi-Pro...and Step Brothers, all of which were dreadful. However, your most egregious offense has come with this year's truly atrocious Land of the Lost, a vacuous movie succubus that took a good three years worth of my school education and flushed it down the toilet due to its mind numbing idiocy. At this point, your career has become nothing more than a joke, a stain on the soiled underwear of Hollywood, and we have all grown tired of your never changing shtick. Your humor is juvenile and your over the top antics have made us all weary. You're not interesting, you're not that good of an actor, and God knows you sure aren't funny. Please, for the love of all things holy, move on with your life and stop flooding our screens with your annoying puerile babble bullcrap.

Sincerely,

Joshua Hylton

4. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (read my review here)—I'm a guy and just like any other testosterone fueled male, I love action movies. I love to see people get shot and stuff get blown up real good. It's practically my existence. Give me an awesome scene that ends with dozens of bodies lying in their own pool of blood and feces and you're on your way to winning me over, but no matter how much action you cram in your movie, you still need a well written script, a coherent story, good acting and a tone that doesn't come off as obnoxious. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has none of those things and is one of the most harebrained movies to come out this year. Like the original, it had a giant budget that could have been used intelligently to make a movie that could be described as something other than loud, but it didn't. Now, the first film wasn't terrible. It was bad and didn't deserve nearly as much credit as its rabid fanbase gave it, but it wasn't a disaster. Its sequel is, however. Its story is incoherent, the acting is just awful (if you think Megan Fox can't act with other people, wait until you see her try to act with something that isn't actually there), the action is insufferably noisy, and it boasts the most racist and offensive stereotyped characters to be placed in a movie this year in the form of Skids and Mudflap, two robots who embody the "black" role, complete with jive talking, gold teeth and large, protruding ears. If you still aren't convinced that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a terrible waste of your time, wait until you see Sam, played by Shia LaBeouf, reach what can only be described as robot heaven. Then come try to argue with me. Spoiler warning! You will lose.

3. Halloween II (read my review here)—The original 1978 John Carpenter classic, Halloween, is widely considered to be one of the scariest movies of all time and rightfully so. I've seen tons of so called "scary movies," but none have affected me the way that film did because the events depicted in it could indeed happen. There's nothing scarier than the thought of a psycho busting through your door to mercilessly murder you with no guilt, rhyme or reason. Not to be confused with the 1981 follow-up, Halloween II, this 2009 sequel to Rob Zombie's appalling Halloween remake sunk as low as it could possibly go. After that cinematic abortion, you'd think there'd be nowhere to go but up, but you'd be wrong. The largest problem with this wretched film is that Zombie doesn't seem to understand what made Michael Myers so scary in the first place. Michael was scary because he tapped into that childhood fear of the boogeyman. He was an enigma, someone who stalked the night looking for flesh to cut into. In this movie, Zombie humanizes him, thus lessening the fear. You see him with his mask off, you see him eat and you hear him grunt and scream. Throw in the laughable notion that Michael's psychosis is related to apparitions of his dead mother next to a white horse and you have one of the worst horror movies of the decade. Considering how low horror movie standards are, that's really saying something.

2. Imagine That (read my review here)—Eddie Murphy used to be someone I looked to for laughs. I loved his Beverly Hills Cop movies, I thought he was brilliant in the first Nutty Professor, and then of course there are the classics Coming to America and Trading Places, both of which were very funny. But then he started making stuff like Daddy Day Care, The Haunted Mansion, Meet Dave and The Adventures of Pluto Nash, which is one of the biggest flops in cinematic history, making just over $4 million on a $100 million budget. When did he decide to start making family friendly movies? He's at his best when he's spouting curse words and reveling in the general vulgarity of his material, so his transition came as a big surprise. Then this year he released Imagine That, a Nickelodeon movie that was about as unbearable an experience as that time I sat through a whole day of elementary school with a steaming loafer in my underwear because I was too embarrassed to ask the teacher if I could go call my mother. It may have even been a tad worse. At least I wasn't bored trying to avoid any possible human interaction and find well ventilated areas to hide the stench. I know it's easy to spew hatred at a supposed kids movie like Imagine That, but it's too idiotic for adults and too boring for kids because I'm pretty sure most young children aren't interested in watching a financial executive participate in business meetings. For that matter, neither am I.

1. Transylmania (read my review here)—Funny story. Last week, I began to put my lists together. I figured it was so late in the game, that the chances of a December film cracking my top ten was slim to none. Besides, one would have to be truly absymal to even be considered in the running along with the rest of these films. Well, consideration not needed with Transylmania. As soon as the closing credits (who am I kidding, the opening scene) began to roll, I knew right away it would be at the top of this list. I actually had to bump New Moon off from the number 10 spot so I could move each film down a notch, which saddens me because now I can't continue my onslaught of how stupid the notion of sparkly vampires are, but it had to be done. The many problems in Transylmania are almost incomprehensible. I'm not even positive I could count that high. This is a film that somehow, for reasons unknown to me, made it into theaters instead of heading straight to DVD. Its filmmakers tout it as a humorous spoof on the country's recent obsession with vampires, but the fact that I had to bump off the already insipid New Moon to make room for this even more insipid "spoof" of that film is telling enough. Words cannot describe my hatred for Transylmania. I would watch the other nine movies on this list dozens of times over if it meant I never had to be subjected to this again because it is hands down the worst film of 2009.

Sherlock Holmes is Pulse Pounding Excitement

God bless Robert Downey Jr. The man is someone everybody should look up to. He's a real talent, capable of giving performances that bring his character to life, but he's fallible. He found himself down on his luck, arrested for drug charges and forced to undergo court ordered drug treatment programs throughout the late 90's and into the 2000's. Instead of giving up, he bounced back, dropped his nasty habits and finally resurrected his career with excellent roles in Zodiac, Tropic Thunder and the exciting Iron Man franchise. Well, he's done it again with Sherlock Holmes, a delightfully fun movie that takes its 2+ hour length and uses it to its fullest with never a dull moment.

The film begins with Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) as he sneaks his way into a murderer's tomb where Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is about to perform a ritualistic sacrifice on what would be his sixth victim. Just before the big finale, Holmes stops him with the help of his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law). At his trial, Blackwood is sentenced to death for committing the murders as well as the practice of black magic. Pronounced dead by Watson himself, everything seems to be over, but the graveyard caretaker who works where Blackwood was laid to rest claims to have seen him rise and walk away, presumably with the help of the devil himself. Meanwhile, a beautiful woman named Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), who already has a history with the famous sleuth, employs Holmes to crack a case of her own, but everything is intertwined and it is up to Holmes and Watson to get to the bottom of these strange occurrences.

I'll be honest. I don't believe I've ever read a Sherlock Holmes story. I can't be sure because I do feel I'm fairly familiar with the character, but ask me to detail one of his adventures and I couldn't do it. Nevertheless, this movie adaptation is phenomenal, a truly audacious attempt at bringing the old timer into the 21st century and giving him new fervor. It succeeds on nearly every level.

One worry I've heard from fans of the character over the last few months is that they fear this new film will be all action and little investigative deduction, neglecting what made the character so popular to begin with. Well my friends, there's no need to fear. Sherlock Holmes is just as you remember him, albeit updated a bit. He is still a brilliant mind, capable of analyzing his environment and surmising meaning from it. With the slightest stain on your lapel, Holmes can tell everything about you and it's fascinating to hear him talk through his reasoning.

Still, there is action in Sherlock Holmes and the detective lays the beat down on a number of goons, but even this doesn't sacrifice the nature of his character. On a number of occasions, the film slows down during these fight scenes and shows each hit as they land on his opponent while he explains how and why he decided to hit where he does. For instance, one of his opponents is hard of hearing, so smacking him in the side of the head to cause a loud ringing will daze him and allow him to continue his assault. He isn't a great fighter because he has arbitrarily gained the skills required to move the story along. He's a great fighter because he can read his opponent and the environment around him to neutralize him quickly and efficiently. It's actually quite brilliant.

Speaking of brilliant, the whole of the production rounds out in a way unheard of in films nowadays. The superb talent that comes together in this thing is simply astounding. Downey is mesmerizing as the titular character and Law is the perfect partner for him. The two have a chemistry together more resounding than most romance films. Their comedic timing is spot on, their cooperation during fisticuffs is great to watch and they look comfortable together. Put Guy Ritchie, an outstanding director who is yet to make an outstanding movie until now, in there with them and you have a great looking, terrifically acted little picture that you can't help but fall in love with.

The more I think about Sherlock Holmes, the more I love it. Its tone properly sets the mood and it struck a perfect balance between the heart pounding action and deductive reasoning. Furthermore, it crafted a riveting story that comes to a full conclusion while still setting up the next film, of which I hope comes soon. I can't wait to revisit the world of Sherlock Holmes. If it's half as good as this, it will still be worth seeing.

Sherlock Holmes receives 4.5/5

It's Complicated an Amusing Holiday Diversion

There's nothing worse than having to write a review for a movie you're indifferent on, one you neither liked nor disliked. It's Complicated is one of those movies. Though I tend to lean towards the side of a recommendation, there's nothing in this movie that will bowl you over, but it's fun enough while it lasts.

The great Meryl Streep plays Jane, a woman who has been divorced from her ex-husband, Jake, played by Alec Baldwin, for ten years. Although she has found herself to be lonely and rejected at times, she has always had the presence of her children to keep her company, but now they have all moved out and her youngest is about to graduate college in New York City, so she heads there to watch the proceedings. Jake is also present and has left his new wife (whom he cheated on Jane with) back home. That night, they meet at a bar and start to catch up on old times and in their increasingly drunken stupor, they end up having sex with each other, sparking an affair back home. Meanwhile, Jane's architect, Adam, played by Steve Martin, starts to fall for her and she gets involved with him too.

So the film goes back and forth between the emotions in the three characters, Jane confused and angry at herself for not committing to one man, Jake desperately wanting to win Jane back and Adam who finds himself smitten with Jane but is unaware of the affair she is having with Jake. This infidelity love triangle is written very well and takes some interesting turns, but it gets drawn out for far too long, nearly two hours. There are only so many sexual encounters between Jake and Jane that you need to show to get the point across. After that, it becomes monotonous.

The reason it is stretched to its breaking point is because each encounter features some zany comedic angle that works as a way to differentiate, and justify, each scene, so it's a good thing most are very funny. Baldwin is absolutely wonderful as the eccentric, lustful adulterer and provides more laughs in this film than everybody else combined. At first, it seemed like nobody else was even trying to help him out in his endeavor to make this movie something other than mediocre.

But then it flips and the weak elements of the movie start to pick up the slack. It's Complicated is a good example of why you should always finish a movie once you start it. You never know if an initially uninteresting flick is going to turn into a thoroughly fun one, which this does. I was miserable for the first 20 to 30 minutes. Very little of the jokes landed for me and I found myself annoyed by the constant pop culture references to Match.com and MTV's horrible show, "The Hills." It felt forced in a way that hoped to appeal to a younger audience and it didn't work, but halfway through the movie I could feel my interest growing. I started to laugh, I cared about the characters and the increased screen time of the up-to-that-point underused John Krasinski eventually won me over.

Still, there are flaws and the film's competition on Christmas day is nothing to scoff at. Going up against Sherlock Holmes and the wide release of the excellent George Clooney film, Up in the Air may prevent this one from finding an audience, but it's a perfect fit for the season. It's a light, fluffy, fun little movie that will work as a cheerful diversion for those who want to rest after the excitement from the holidays wears down.

It's Complicated receives 3/5

A Single Man Beautiful, But Empty

I'm a liberal. I like Barack Obama. I disliked George W. Bush. I'm against the war. And I'm an advocate for gay marriage. Why do I feel the need to point all this out so matter-of-factly? Well, as you can tell by now, I'm a film lover and Hollywood tends to be liberal and I've seen many films about homosexuals that I absolutely love. I think discrimination against them is one of the biggest travesties of our nation because it shows how immature and selfish we are when it comes to people unlike ourselves. When a movie comes along about a gay person facing these problems, I feel touched and embrace it with love. However, the new gay-centric film, A Single Man, doesn't make me feel this way. Though it is an aesthetically sound film and features good performances, certain aspects don't hold up to scrutiny.

The film is set in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and centers around college professor George (Colin Firth), a grieving man who lost his lover, Jim (Matthew Goode), in a devastating car accident eight months prior. Now he is sad and alone, wandering through life in a constant state of depression. He wakes up every morning out of breath from the nightmares haunting his dreams, his heart literally aches from his sadness and he finds it increasingly difficult to get through each day. He is contemplating suicide and the movie follows him through one day of his life where he hits highs and lows and in the end must make a decision to live or die.

A Single Man is directed by newcomer Tom Ford, a gay man himself and a fashion expert. Being knowledgeable in fashion has allowed him to create a distinctive look to the film that is all his own. He has an eye for the colorful and bright as well as the dark and plain and he uses this talent to the fullest, wonderfully transitioning it to the big screen. Throughout the film, he changes the color palette to reflect on George's mood. Most of the time, George is down and Ford utilizes a grey-ish tint to symbolize the depression he is facing. However, when his outlook on life changes and he begins to see the joys that can still come, like when he makes a romantic connection with a new, young man, everything brightens up to reflect that. It's a beautiful and meaningful aesthetic that never keeps you in the dark on George's feelings, but rather puts you in his shoes and allows you to see the world as he sees it, bright when happy and stripped of color when sad.

To accompany that, the editing creates a similar correlation. The way it is put together—slow motion, absence of sound, jump cuts, etc.—feels almost surreal, which is appropriate considering some of these scenes are dreams. Some scenes feel incomplete without sound and with jump cuts, but it perfectly complements George's life because he feels incomplete without Jim.

All of this is fine. In fact, it's the main reason to see this movie. It's look and feel are spectacular and kept me staring at the screen in awe. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie isn't nearly as impressive. Though vastly different movies, I never felt the connection between Jim and George that I did with Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain or Sean Penn and James Franco in Milk. I acknowledge that, due to the structure of the story, Jim and George don't share much screen time, but without an authentic chemistry, I found it hard to care about George and the pain he was feeling.

Nevertheless, I did find A Single Man to be a timely picture, despite the 60's setting. One early scene where George finds out Jim is dead echoes present situations. He makes a remark about how he should get ready for the funeral, but is told that the funeral is "for family only." Jim and George had been together for 16 years and if that isn't family, I don't know what is, but he is still not allowed to attend. This is similar to the ongoing debate over what constitutes a "family" and whether or not homosexuals are allowed visitation rights when their lover is sick in the hospital.

In another scene, George explains to his class that minorities are everywhere, but aren't classified as such until they pose a threat, which is usually imaginary. Look at redheads for instance, or people with freckles. They are minorities, but we don't consider them in a class of their own, but we take homosexuals and Middle Easterners and African Americans and lump them into their own little group. Why? As George says, it is because we are afraid. Fear motivates us to not only acknowledge, but create minorities in the hope of keeping them subdued.

All of this is incredibly smart. Being set during the Cuban missile crisis also brings up talks of a nuclear war, another threat we are facing today. But these ideologies are merely sidenotes on the path to the fim's conclusion. They are brought up and they are presented with the obvious desire to spark discussion, but are dropped just as quickly and never achieve their desired purposes.

The problem with analyzing A Single Man is this. If you are a film lover like me and can appreciate the indelible look of the picture, it's worth seeing, but are casual movie-goers going to enjoy it? I don't think so. The story is lacking, the chemistry is almost non-existent and most will find it hard to care about what is going on in George's life. Still, I have to go with my gut reaction and although I'm torn on most accounts, I do feel like this is a good enough movie for people to check out, but it wouldn't be a crime to wait for the DVD.

A Single Man receives 3/5

Nine a Lacking Musical

I'm a guy who considers himself in touch with his feminine side. Just ask my sister. She commented the other day that our genders should have been switched because she would rather watch an action/comedy/horror movie any day while I'm a sucker for romance movies and don't mind a good musical. Therefore, the newest musical, Nine (not to be confused with this year's computer animated movie 9), is right up my alley, but even I have my limits. It comes from the director of Chicago, a musical I enjoyed quite a bit, but this isn't nearly as good and it isn't worth seeing.

The film takes place in Rome in 1965 and follows struggling screenwriter and director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) as he attempts to write a script for his upcoming movie, Italia, which is going to star Claudia (Nicole Kidman), a famous actress. As the days go by and the commencement shooting day approaches, Guido gets more and more stressed due to his inability to pump out something. Meanwhile, he is being hounded by the media, one of whom is a beautiful reporter named Stephanie (Kate Hudson), and he is dealing with a declining marriage to his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard) while attempting to juggle an affair he is having with Carla (Penelope Cruz).

Really, there's not much to this story. We meet Guido, he struggles to find a voice for his next movie and then the film ends, but Nine isn't really about the story, at least for me it wasn't. It was about the musical numbers that were intercut between the story at hand. This isn't necessarily your typical musical because people don't spontaneously burst into song, like we've seen recently with films like Mamma Mia!, High School Musical 3 and Sweeney Todd. What happens is that the feelings of the characters take over and they are placed on a theatrical stage where those emotions are played out through song. Sometimes it's a happy, upbeat song, sometimes it's sad and sometimes it's Guido's own sexual fantasies that get the best of him.

So are they impressive? Kind of. The physical performances were spectacular, tackling an epic grandeur of theater that I loved watching, but the songs lack something of which I can't quite put my finger on. I'm no connoisseur of musical theater, so perhaps I'm not the most qualified to judge the music in the film, but I found most of the songs to be bland and forgettable. If you asked me to sing the songs right now, I could do maybe one (the "Be Italian" song was terrific) because the rest have already escaped from my mind.

However, as I said before, the actors don't just break out into song randomly, which successfully avoids the cringes a lot of musicals inadvertently produce, but I was not a fan of what they did instead. None of the musical numbers take place in the movie's setting, which led to random departures from what was going on and I prefer to see the actor's interact with the environment given to them, like Johnny Depp did in the excellent Sweeney Todd. I liked how each song reflected what was going on in the scene, but when you displace the actors from the actual scene you're reflecting, you are being counterintuitive.

Thankfully, the actors make up for the film's faults, not completely, but enough to make it tolerable. Daniel Day-Lewis is brilliant as always and the rest of this terrific ensemble cast are excellent as well, including Kate Hudson, who hasn't done anything worthwhile since 2000's Almost Famous. But after the first hour, you've gained everything you possibly can, yet it goes on for another hour and wears out its welcome quickly.

Nine is not a bad film and it has plenty of beautiful women, but if you're really itching for a musical, go check out the director's previous effort, Chicago or the Tim Burton masterpiece, Sweeney Todd. Don't waste your time with this one.

Nine receives 2/5

The Chipmunks As Annoying As Ever

"We're baaack," the irritating, high pitched, helium-esque voice of Alvin proclaims early in the follow-up installment to the commercially successful 2007 flick, Alvin and the Chipmunks. Featuring one of the dumbest subtitles to ever grace a film, The Squeakquel, and characters that would be indistinguishable if not for the glasses on Simon and the giant "A" on Alvin's t-shirt, I quickly found myself wishing that those opening words would have followed with "to being socially irrelevant."

The film begins at a concert the now world renowned Chipmunks are performing at. Alvin (voiced by Justin Long) is showboating and while offstage, Dave (Jason Lee) tells him that he needs to include the other two. The show isn't only about him. Alvin scoffs at him and continues to do his thing, only to accidentally knock a giant picture of himself down from the ceiling that smashes into Dave and hospitalizes him. They are put in the care of Toby (Zachary Levi) in the meantime and are forced to go to school where they encounter a mixture of immense popularity and incessant bullying. Meanwhile, Ian (David Cross reprising his role from the first film) is living in the slums, bitter at the Chipmunks for foiling his plans and he is searching for the next big thing. One day, a female group of Chipmunks show up, whom he dubs the Chipettes, and the rivalry, as well as romances, begin to heat up.

I grew up with the Chipmunks and, believe it or not, I didn't hate the first film. It was bad, but it wasn't that bad. It was an adequate time waster for the whole family that offered up a few moments of cuteness and joy, but the sequel lacks what that film had, which wasn't much to begin with.

Jason Lee, who plays Dave, was the main human character in the first movie. Though he certainly didn't wow me with his lackadaisical attitude and minimal effort, he was a decent fit for the role, but I get the feeling the filmmakers wanted to try someone different because he fades into obscurity here. He's in the opening scene and then again in the closing, but nearly nowhere in between. Instead, the caregiver of the Chipmunks is Ian who is a poor replacement for Dave. Zachary Levi does a terrible job. He may have a decent following for his role in the hit television show, "Chuck," but perhaps that is an indication that he is more suitable for the small screen. I know it's difficult to act with characters that aren't actually there with you, but his performance was so awful that it became a distraction.

Or at least it would have been had there been something interesting to distract from. The story follows the same ho-hum arc of the original film, only it tries to pass itself off as original by throwing in some female chipmunks, whom do little to spice up the affair.

The jokes don't fare much better, consisting of the tried and true formulas that children adore, like excretory humor and idiotic slapstick. How many times must we be forced to watch this inanity before Hollywood realizes it's simply not funny? When they tried to appeal to the adult audience in the theater, who no doubt begrudgingly wandered in for the sake of their child's enjoyment, it was usually in the form of old film references. These references not only defiled the sanctity of the original works. They chewed them, spit them out, stomped on them and pretty much tainted any type of legacy they may have had up to that point. Once you've heard those annoying little critters quote famous lines from Taxi Driver and Silence of the Lambs, there's no going back.

One thing I must question before I get into the positives (what little there are at least) is why the filmmakers got numerous people, a few huge stars even, to voice the characters. They all sound exactly the same. Case in point. When the Chipettes are first introduced, they are not shown and are only heard because they are sealed inside a package. I got confused. I thought, "How did the Chipmunks end up in there?" You see, their voices, despite being the opposite sex, were identical to Alvin, Theodore and Simon. Amy Poehler, Christina Applegate and Anna Faris voice the three Chipettes, but their voices are manipulated so much that you can't tell them apart from Justin Long, Jesse McCartney and Matthew Gubler, who voice the guys. Why not just get one person to do every voice?

Now, this is a kids movie and kids movies are easy targets, so I would like to point out a few things I did like. The animation is good. I thought the Chipmunks were capably rendered and the blend of cartoons and realism worked well for the tone of the film. Theodore, despite his aggravating voice, was also adorable, though that still didn't stop me from wishing that he would be devoured after he accidentally stumbles into the Birds of Prey cage at the local zoo late in the movie. What can I say? Cuteness can only get you so far.

What I really mean to say here is that two minor positive characteristics do little in the overall scheme of things to shadow the glaring problems persistent in the rest of Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel. I could go into so much more—poorly drawn out romances, side plots that go nowhere and numerous visual inconsistencies to name a few—but that would be similar to providing razorblades to the suicidal. It's already miserable. Why kick it when it's down?

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel receives 0.5/5

The Morgans a Vacuous Waste of Time

Did you hear about Did You Hear About the Morgans? No? You have no idea how lucky you are. It's the newest romantic comedy starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Grant that is being released this week as counterprogramming to Avatar. Think about that. Avatar is the most anticipated action spectacle of the year, so you have to have some pretty big balls to put any movie opposite it, but if you are, you might as well make it the dumbest, cheesiest chick flick you can to appeal to the ladies who aren't interested in James Cameron's visual feast. I hope you're single this week fellas because you're going to look like tools walking into this mind numbing rom-com.

The film follows New York real estate broker Meryl, played by Parker, and Paul, played by Grant, as they are going through a separation. Paul has evidently cheated on Meryl, but he's desperately sorry and wants to get back with her, so he asks her on a date so they can talk things out. On their walk after the date, they see a man get killed from his balcony and fall onto the city streets below. They try to hide, but his killer spots Paul and Meryl. After an attempt is made on Meryl's life, she and Paul are placed into the Witness Relocation Program. Where are they sent? Why, to the most hum dinging, gun slinging, rodeo watching, hoe down dancing place on the planet, Ray, Wyoming! And they're New Yorkers! What a humorous turn of events! Hmm, I wonder if Paul and Meryl will rekindle their relationship and come to love the small town?

Did You Hear About the Morgans? is a trite, unnecessary time waster that spends most of its time joking about the stark contrast between the two New Yorkers and the country folk. Meryl is a member of PETA, so naturally she is sent to a family who has dozens of animal heads adorning their walls. When her hostess asks her, "Are you a hunter?" she replies with, "Just for bargains." Ho ho, look out now!

The biggest problem with most of the jokes is that they are telegraphed seconds beforehand. Comedy is effective for many reasons, but one important reason is the element of surprise. If you know which jokes are coming, the comedic punch is all but taken out, yet I could have quoted around half of the jokes in this movie as they were being said.

Partially due to contrivance and partially due to Meryl's own stupidity, the killer finds out where they are and travels to Wyoming to take them out, which culminates into one of the dumbest, most anti-climactic endings of the year, where (spoilers!) the killer is taken out by a horseshoe perfectly thrown to land on his head. This is followed by a hackneyed dialogue from Meryl about how much she loves Paul, a small sample of the film's overall terrible writing.

What I really hated in Did You Hear About the Morgans? was how unaffecting the conflict was between Meryl and Paul. What they did was create this arbitrary struggle between the two so they are at odds at the beginning of the movie, but they want us to like Paul. He cheated on his wife! What's to like? I was supposed to feel bad for Paul's desperation. I didn't. Of course, later in the movie, you find out (spoilers...again!) that Meryl slept with somebody else as well, which creates even more tension between the two. Why? Paul has no right to be angry at her after what he did. I hate these types of movies because there are no rational characters.

Boy, is this a bad movie. While the actors do their best, especially Grant who still manages to squeeze some of his natural charm into this unfunny wasteland, nothing can save it from its low ambition and sloppy writing. Did You Hear About the Morgans? I wish I hadn't.

Did You Hear About the Morgans? receives 1/5

Avatar a Beautiful Bore

It's been 12 years since James Cameron brought us his last big screen adventure in the form of Titanic, the highest grossing movie ever made, and with his latest film, Avatar, being nearly 15 years in the making (he wrote the script in 1995), expectations couldn't be higher. It's the film that's supposed to revolutionize filmmaking and dawn a new era of digital technology, pushing its limits as far as it can go. If you look at it from that viewpoint, it succeeds. It creates an alive, distinctive world that looks as realistic as the world we live on today, but that is only one aspect of the film. The look is great, but the feeling is absent. Unfortunately, Avatar is a huge disappointment.

The film follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a young lad paralyzed from the waist down, as he is recruited by the military to take up the job his now dead twin brother previously had as an avatar controller. The avatar's are comprised of the DNA of the controller and the DNA of the natives and because Jake's genetic make-up is identical, he is able to use the same machine and carry out the work his brother left behind. He and the crew have all traveled away from the dying Earth to the planet of Pandora where an indigenous group of blue cat-like creatures called the Na'vi live. They are there to harvest a rare unobtainable substance called Unobtainium (how cute), but can't because the Na'vi's village rests on the largest deposit known in the world. Jake's job is to earn the Na'vi's trust and convince them to relocate because if they don't, the military will use force to drive them out.

There's a terrific article about Avatar that was written about a month ago over at Wired.com that explores every facet of Pandora and explains how Cameron desired to out Star Wars Star Wars, meaning he wanted to create a mythology just as intricate and deep as the Star Wars universe. Though most of it never appeared in the film and will only have meaning to those who take the time to seek the information out, Cameron went through every aspect of the planet and made it unique, which included crafting an entire new language, naming every animal and plant, all of which received a Na'vi, Latin and common name and have detailed descriptions of how they function on the planet, and he even hired an astrophysicist to calculate Pandora's atmospheric density. According to the article, when all was said and done, they had compiled a 350 page manual named "Pandorapedia" that detailed every possible aspect of the planet that you could imagine. If only Cameron would have spent less time on these menial tasks and more time constructing a meaningful story.

One can't help but be impressed by Cameron's dedication to crafting a true, authentic world with a complete science and history to explain how things work, but almost none of it matters in the scheme of the overall picture. Most are never seen or heard onscreen (sans the Na'vi language, which you'll hear plenty of) and are all but irrelevant. Those who love the film will find even more to love with this information, but too much time was spent on this useless dossier than on the story and that's a problem.

Though different in theory, the story of Avatar is routinely told and goes nowhere unexpected. While I won't spoil it here, you can tell from the trailer exactly where it is going and what Jake will end up doing by the end of the movie. Being a two hour and 45 minute film, it takes plenty of time to develop its characters, which is usually a good thing, but they are developed so poorly that no emotion seeps through. Before it is over, people die and bad things happen, yet I didn't care about any of it.

One reason is that the visuals overpower the story itself. The CGI in Avatar is, without exaggeration, the best CGI ever put to screen. I've never seen such a realistic digital world in my life. Each leaf, each blade of grass, everything in the environment is beautifully rendered and the interaction between real and fake objects is unparalleled. This is truly a wondrous sight to behold, but it looks so good that I actually found myself distracted by it. This is an odd criticism, but it looked too good. Eventually you become so aware of the visuals that all of the human emotion gets sucked dry. I found myself more interested in the texture and details and how each individual leaf blew in the wind than I was the story. Had it been better, these problems may have been non-existent. Unfortunately, it's not.

Then there's the rest of the writing. The story was unaffecting, but I can't say I'm surprised with dialogue like this. There are some tremendously corny, downright stupid lines of dialogue in Avatar, most coming from Michelle Rodriguez who plays Trudy, a pilot. In fact, her whole character was grating on the nerves. Combine her with Joel David Moore, who plays another avatar controller, and you have two actors who felt out of place, as if so much money had already been spent that they couldn't afford to acquire actors of higher stature.

One thing I can applaud Avatar for is that it effectively implemented some of the best 3D I've ever seen, which perfectly complemented its already lush visuals. It was used the way it should be, not as a gimmick with objects incessantly popping out at you, but as a way to heighten the experience. However, that doesn't mask the film's many problems.

It's tough to give a final call on Avatar because if it didn't have such amazing CGI, I would easily say to skip it, but I almost feel obligated to recommend it because its look truly is groundbreaking and could revolutionize the way we implement digital effects. All I can really do is leave it up to you. If you're interested in seeing this new technology, give it a shot because you're guaranteed to be impressed, but if you care about more than just a fancy coat of paint and want to see something interesting underneath it all, you'd be better off looking somewhere else.

Avatar receives 2.5/5

The Princess and the Frog Joyful and Exuberant

As a kid, I enjoyed a lot of things, but if you asked me to name one thing that I was always attracted to, I would have to say animation. To this day I find myself gravitating towards any and all animation ranging from the most grandiose of films (Wall-E, Spirited Away) to the smallest of television shows (The Fairly Oddparents). Although I could only describe the basics of how animation works, I love the art form. Imagine how pleased I am, after five years of neglect, to finally see Disney hearken back to their old days of 2D animation with the terrific The Princess and the Frog. There's something to be said for this traditional style of animation and I hope this new film sparks its comeback.

The movie begins with Tiana (voiced by Anika Rose) as a little girl being told the story of "The Frog Prince," a tale where a princess kisses a frog who then becomes a prince whom marries her and they live happily ever after. She is told the story over at Charlotte's (voiced by Jennifer Cody) place, a giant mansion where her mother works binding together dresses for the spoiled young girl. They both believe in the story and wish upon stars in the hopes that their prince charmings will one day come to rescue them. Tiana's father, who dreams of one day opening a restaurant with his daughter, tells her to keep believing, but to always work hard because if she does, she can do anything. Flash forward years later and Tiana's father is dead, never having realized his dream. Tiana is now working two jobs, still trying to save up enough to start that restaurant, and has since given up on wishing.

Meanwhile, a handsome prince (voiced by Bruno Campos) is announced to be coming to town, but he goes missing and ends up being turned into a frog by an evil voodoo witch doctor named Facilier (voiced by Keith David). He shows up at a party one night and surprises Tiana by talking to her. Once again believing in the story, she kisses the frog hoping he'll turn back into a prince, but since she is not a princess like Charlotte, the spell reverses and instead turns her into a frog. Mama Odie (voiced by Jenifer Lewis) is the only person that can turn them back, so they journey all over New Orleans in search of her and meet a host of characters along the way.

Boy, that's a long synopsis, but truth be told, all of this is only in the very beginning of the film. So much more goes on throughout the course of its brief runtime that it would be too taxing to detail it all here. This is a very story oriented movie, and what a story it is. The Princess and the Frog is pure magic, a delightful film that had me tapping my toes and smiling at the unadulterated joy placed in front of me. Who thought a love story between two frogs would be so endearing?

Along their journey, Tiana and her prince befriend a host of colorful characters, most notably Louis (voiced by Michael-Leon Wooley), a jazz trumpet player who desires to be human, and Ray (voiced by Jim Cummings), a firefly who falls in love with a star in the sky, whom he names Evangeline. Both are fabulous characters and offer up plenty of laughs, which allows them to stand on their own alongside the already wonderful frog couple, which is to say, this movie is very funny. Outside of a few puerile fart and snot jokes, the witty writing, excellent vocal delivery and spot on visual timing combine for a wondrous time at the movies.

Of vast importance as well, to me anyway, were the messages because they were meaningful and they teach the children in the audience without shoving the lessons down their throats. This isn't a preachy movie, but rather one that knows what's important in life and it shares its philosophies. It acknowledges how magical it can be to wish upon a star and teaches children to keep their dreams alive, but it also shows how wishing can only get you so far. Dedicated hard work is what really gets you through in life. At the same time, it values happiness and rightfully devalues money, taking the old Beatles train of thought that money can't buy you love. You can have all the money in the world, but it's companionship that really counts.

As was to be expected, the songs are amazing and the animation is exquisite, perfectly echoing past hand drawn Disney efforts and the final product is just as imaginative and enchanting. Not a stroke of color goes to waste in this marvelous tale.

While The Princess and the Frog may not be as good as such Disney classics as Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King, it's right up there and I wouldn't be surprised to hear today's children talk about the fond memories they have from it 20 years from now. It's simply that good. This one is not to be missed.

The Princess and the Frog receives 4.5/5