Reviews by Joshua "LF"

Disney's Fantasia was released in 1940, and though it was unpopular upon initial release, today it is considered one of Disney's best films. Personally, I found it to be immensely overrated, and downright lazy. And yet, I have found Fantasia 2000, the much anticipated sequel, to be entertaining and unique, and a massive improvement on the lacking original.

Fantasia 2000, like the 1940 original, has no single plot, but is made up of a series of animated segments with classical music scoring each segment. I will cover each segment in my review.

The opening segment is Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. This is basically just a bunch of abstract images put to music. As I was watching this segment, I was not only uninterested in the "events" onscreen, but I began to dread the rest of the film. This was essentially just 1940's Fantasia all over again.

The second segment, Pines of Rome by Ottorino Respighi did little to improve my mood. This segment just followed a bunch of poorly-animated flying whales around for 10 minutes. Hardly brilliant film-making.

It was when Fantasia 2000 reached the third segment, when I began to enjoy myself. With the delightfully fun and jazzy Rhapsody in Blue playing (composed by George Gershwin) and a series of entertaining stories and characters revealed throughout, this is the best segment in the film. If the entire film was like this single segment, Fantasia 2000 would've been an inarguable masterpiece. As it stands, this is just an unusually good segment in an otherwise decent film.

The fourth segment, Piano Concerto No. 2 composed by Dmitri Shostakovich, is mediocre. Based off of Han Christian Andersen's "The Steadfast Tin Soldier," this fourth segment offers interesting animation and character designs, but little else.

The Carnival of Animals, Finale, composed by Camille Saint-Saens, makes up the fifth segment, and one of the better ones. Short and sweet, this segment is about a flamingo who enjoys playing with yo-yo's, much to the disgust of his friends. This funny and energetic segment is memorable, and is also highly reminiscent of Pixar's 1986 short, Luxo Jr.

The sixth segment is hugely unnecessary. I honestly can't believe Disney did this, but the sixth segment is "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" short from the 1940 Fantasia film. No changes of any sort have been made. Why is this here? If we really wanted to see this short, we would just go see the original film! It doesn't help that this short is so forgettable. Not unlike many of the other segments in either film, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is artistically interesting, but little else.

The seventh segment is Pomp and Circumstance- Marches 1, 2, 3, and 4, composed by Edward Elgar. This segment is a re-telling of the story of Noah's Ark, and the music choice here is quite inspired. While this short is beautifully animated and actually extremely touching, it suffers from one thing: Donald Duck.

Donald Duck is the main character here, and though that's not a problem in itself, the filmmakers chose to make Donald mute. We do not hear him speak in this short, which immediately makes him lose all of his charm. This was likely done to draw more attention to the music, but this gives Donald Duck no reason to be here, other than to attract little kids. I have the utmost respect for Disney, but the way the company insists on pandering to children is frustrating.

The final segment is Firebird Suite composed by Igor Stravinsky. The simple short involves a sprite that accidentally awakens a Firebird, which causes mass destruction. This segment features jaw-dropping animation, but the story itself is dull and unfocused.

The segments themselves are a mixed bag, and the same can be said for the intros. Each segment (with the exception of the first segment) is given an introduction from a celebrity.

The first introduction (for the second segment) is given by Steve Martin. His cameo is not funny, and also feels very phoned in. The intro for the fourth segment is given by Bette Midler. It gives us some interesting background about Fantasia segments that were never completed, but this intro is basically the equivalent of being given an array of presents, then having them all quickly taken away.

The introduction for the fifth segment (by James Earl Jones) provides a chuckle. The intro for the sixth segment is given by Penn Jilette and Raymond Joseph Teller, and is the best of the intros, and actually more entertaining than the segment itself.

The intro for the seventh segment features Mickey and Donald, and it's worth a few laughs. The other intros are immediately forgettable and not worth further mention.

A massive improvement over the hugely overrated original, Fantasia 2000 is a solid film. An improvement over the original in animation, music, and length, Fantasia 2000 is entertaining and short. It's greatly flawed, and many segments are uninteresting, but it's worth a viewing, especially if you enjoyed the original.

I guess I should make it understood before I start this review that I am not a fan of Dreamworks Animation. Most of their films just seem like products to me, and there seems to be little creativity going into them. With that being said, it delights me to say that Rise of the Guardians is an excellent film that far surpassed my low expectations.

The plot, for the most part, is relatively simple. Jack Frost is tired of not being believed in, but gets his chance to be seen and adored when Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman call upon Frost to help overcome the dastardly Pitch.

I wanted to dislike this film. The trailers and commercials made this film look exactly the same as everything else Dreamworks has done. And yet, as I continued to watch, I found myself chuckling at a few of the lines. Then laughing. It wasn't long until I was completely engaged with the story and characters, and by the time the film came to a close, I was actually kind of sad it was over.

Let me make this clear; this is not at all like a normal Dreamworks film. The humor is sharper, the story is stronger, the characters are...well they're an improvement anyway. Perhaps most notably, humor does not seem to be the main focus of this film. Granted, this is still a very funny film, but there seems to be a lot more emphasis on the story. Yup, you read that right: A Dreamworks film is actually putting emphasis on the STORY. Not the jokes!

The story itself is made up of familiar elements, but still feels new. It's a crazy blend of The Avengers, Arthur Christmas, How to Train Your Dragon and The Nightmare Before Christmas. And yet, it works. Heck, I was even pretty moved during a few scenes near-ish to the end. Since when is a Dreamworks film moving?

The characters are something of a mixed bag. The five guardians (Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Sandman, and Jack Frost) are all meant to be a bit different than the mythical beings you grew up believing in. Santa's a big Russian dude, the Easter Bunny is a fearless Australian, etc. The problem is that not all of the changes make sense. The two I just mentioned for instance. Why is Santa Russian? Why is the Easter Bunny Australian? I don't really understand the connection, nor the humor in this change.

The Tooth Fairy is a fast-talking, tooth-obsessed fairy. All right, I'll buy that. The Sandman doesn't talk, but communicates through gestures and images made from sand. Okay, that makes sense. Jack Frost is a semi-rebellious, slightly cocky teenager. Not particularly original or interesting, but I can see that. But Santa as a Russian and the Easter Bunny as an Australian doesn't make much sense.

And then there's the villain. Pitch is certainly menacing, and he has a good motive, but he just isn't very interesting. He's not funny, his character design is completely bland, and he doesn't do enough to separate himself from any other animated villain. That's a shame, because he wasn't that far away from being a pretty memorable character. Alas, he still suffices.

Despite the fact that I don't love some of the twists on the guardians, it's still a joy to see them together. The best scenes involve them all interacting with each other. One particularly fun scene involves all five guardians helping the Tooth Fairy collect teeth from under children's pillows. We get to see these characters competing and teasing each other, and it's really fun.

I think what really makes this film work, though, is balance. There's a perfect amount of emphasis on story, humor, character interaction, etc. There's never too much attention on one aspect of the film. Dreamworks is prone to struggling when it comes to balance. Films like Madgascar had too much emphasis on humor. Films like Kung Fu Panda 2 had too much emphasis on story. And films like Over the Hedge had too much emphasis on characters.

In Rise of the Guardians, Dreamworks seems to finally understand that their humor, story, and characters can't work by themselves. By giving the proper balance to each aspect of the film, Dreamworks made this film work.

The voice acting varies in terms of quality. I generally dislike using adults to voice children and teens, so it shouldn't be too surprising that I did not enjoy Chris Pine as Jack Frost. And Hugh Jackman as the Easter Bunny isn't especially great. But Alec Baldwin as Santa Claus and Isla Fisher as the Tooth Fairy are excellent, and Jude Law lends a unique voice to the villain.

The animation is very nice, though not quite as jaw-dropping as what we've come to expect from Disney or Pixar. The score, by Alexandre Desplat, is simply incredible. It's outrageously fun, and gives an appropriate sense of wonder when it needs to.

Rise of the Guardians isn't perfect, and doesn't have the same polish as a Disney or Pixar film, but I still loved it. It's a shame the film did so poorly at box office, because it's a very fun, and certainly magical movie. Perhaps Dreamworks has finally matured into a studio capable of entertaining all ages, and not just kids. I may not have been very kind to Dreamworks in the past, but this film has convinced me that they are capable of excellent entertainment.

You know what the world needs? More pirates. At least Disney thinks so. And the funny thing is; they may be on to something. Ignoring the less than enjoyable At World's End, The Pirates of the Caribbean films haven't been half bad. What was once considered a terrible and sure-to-fail idea by many has turned into a relatively fun franchise. On Stranger Tides, the fourth entry in the Pirates series, continues dishing out the mindless and entertaining joy of its predecessors, if slightly less consistently than in the first two films.

Summarized as simply as possible, On Stranger Tides continues the misadventures of Pirate Captain Jack Sparrow. This time, Jack is on the search for the Fountain of Youth. Things are, of course, complicated, when Jack runs across an old love named Angelica who semi-kidnaps Jack and steals him aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge, which is commanded by Captain Blackbeard. To further complicate things, they aren't the only ones that want the Fountain of Youth. Barbossa is back, as well as Gibs, but the main focus is on Jack and Angelica.

On Stranger Tides does everything one could reasonably expect in a film like this. We get plenty of action scenes- that are great fun in the moment, but not easily remembered when the film is over- amusing one liners, many of which come from Jack Sparrow, and some impressive special effects, though none of which seemed quite as impressive as those in the previous entries.

It's nice to see old friends again, though I have to add, we don't get to see ALL of our old friends. Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann are no where to be found, though they were mostly uninteresting characters anyway. More importantly, Jack's entire crew is gone, with the exception of Mr. Gibs. Still, On Stranger Tides is crowded enough as it is, and does mostly fine without them.

The new characters aren't particularly great. Most of them are forgettable, others are flawed. Angelica is a mostly bland and confused character. Her character traits contradict each other as the film goes on, and this is not limited to her love-hate relationship with Jack.

Blackbeard as the villain is all right, but he's not as amusing as Barbossa, nor as menacing as Davy Jones. The film seems to be trying to meet halfway with Blackbeard, but it doesn't really work.

Still, no one sees Pirates of the Caribbean for new characters. We just want to see our old friends, and be assured; the characters that do return get plenty of screen time. Jack Sparrow gets his biggest role since the original, which is especially nice since he was all but forgotten in At World's End. Barbossa gets his share of scenes, and Mr. Gibs gets a surprising amount of screen time, though his character seems conveniently forgotten about at many intervals.

On Stranger Tides is fun- so long as you turn off your brain- but there are a number of serious moments that just kills the pacing. To avoid potential spoilers, I won't name the primary serious bits, but let's just say that in a silly film like this, those moments don't belong here.

There's also a bizarre romance between a mermaid and a character named Philip Swift, which makes up one of the biggest "What the heck?!" factors in the Pirates series (which is quite impressive when you consider some of the confounding-ly weird moments in the previous films).

The acting is still great. Everyone seems to be having a good time, and that adds a lot of energy to everyone's performance. Johnny Depp clearly relishes the role of Jack Sparrow, and the same can be said for Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. Penelope Cruz does what she can as Angelica, but one can only do so much with a bad character. Ian McShane is solid as Blackbeard.

Like the film itself, Hans Zimmer's score is relatively mindless, but it's fun and works within the film. Aside from some guitar throughout, this is essentially identical to the other Pirates scores, but considering the effective (if not entirely original) themes in the previous scores, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Flawed? Yes. Silly? Yes. Stupid? You bet! And it's more than a bit unfocused. But despite all of that, On Stranger Tides works. It's not as fun as the first two films, yet it's still perfectly enjoyable, as long as you can excuse some flaws. On Stranger Tides is certainly a guilty pleasure, but a pleasure nonetheless.

I'm very thankful that The Muppet Movie is not my first exposure to these characters. I've seen many of their movies before, as well as their TV show, so I know that these characters are capable of being funny. Had I seen The Muppet Movie first, however, I likely would've avoided the muppets like the plague. A truly terrible film in just about every respect, The Muppet Movie is a disaster, and I find it strange that other people don't see that.

In a nutshell, The Muppet Movie is about Kermit the Frog, who is convinced he may have a career in film, and goes on a crazy road trip to Hollywood, picking up new friends to come along. Things are further complicated, however, by a villainous man named Doc Hopper, who's intent on using Kermit to promote his fried-frog-leg business.

This is not a complicated story. And yet, The Muppet Movie seems to have found the most convoluted way possible to tell it. The story is completely unfocused, and the whole production lacks any kind of cohesiveness. At times, I began wondering if this was really the entire film, as it seems that major scenes or necessary dialogue were missing somehow. Perhaps there was initially a longer cut of the film, but it was condensed in editing. Research may prove beneficial, but I'm not sure how much more time I want to waste on this film.

The Muppet Movie also suffers from fairly poor comedy. I'll admit, the first 20 minutes has some pretty memorable scenes, and the many cameos (while a bit excessive) were fairly amusing. Yet, after the first 20 minutes, the whole film is a complete and utter drag. Paced absurdly slow, with almost no successful humor, The Muppet Movie is mind-numbingly boring.

At the same time, many of the jokes are painfully terrible. Most of the time, it's hard to tell apart clever parody, or awful joke. I'm sure a lot of the humor was hilarious 30 years ago, but today, none of it really works.

At least the songs are good, right? Well, no. Yes, "Rainbow Connection" is a classic, and "Movin' Right Along" is pretty catchy, but the rest of the songs are weak. "Never Before, Never Again," is completely forgettable, and immensely dull. "I Hope That Something Better Comes Along" sounds like the lyrics were written by an eight year old, and "I'm Going to Back There Someday" just sounds like a bad rip-off of "Rainbow Connection." Still, none of these songs are even close to as awful as "Can You Picture That?" I very nearly skipped this song because I despised it so, and in retrospect, that might not have been such a bad idea.

The acting is all right, though hardly revolutionary. The human cast is basically just there to either move the story along, or interact with the muppets. Still, Charles Durning is pretty funny as Doc Hopper. And the many, many cameos are at least worth a smile. Still, Steve Martin's cameo may be one of the strangest I've seen. It wasn't so much funny as it was odd.

The score, by Paul Williams, is fun. The uses of the Rainbow Connection theme are great, but there's not much here to note.

The Muppet Movie is simply terrible. Slow, unfunny, poorly written, and with terrible songs, this is a disaster, and I can't believe how highly it's often regarded. Even the first 20 minutes, which I mentioned earlier as the funniest part of the film, never made me laugh. A handful of smiles and some clever cameos are all The Muppet Movie has to offer. In my opinion, it could only please the nostalgic, or the desperate.

*This review contains spoilers.*

Ever wondered what Jurassic Park would look like if it were made exclusively for kids? Probably a lot like Jurassic Park III, an almost unwatchable third entry in an otherwise solid film series. Lacking the fun, suspense, and overall entertainment value of the first two films, Jurassic Park III is filled with moments of unintentional humor, tedium, and disappointment all around.

Jurassic Park III begins almost identically to Jurassic Park: The Lost World. A few people are enjoying their vacation a little too close to the dinosaur-infested Isla Sorna, and ends in disaster. One of these unlucky victims is an unlucky boy named Eric. Eric's divorced parents (who curiously were not with the boy at the time of this accident) are determined to go to Isla Sorna and find him, despite the dangers. They also manage to trick Dr. Alan Grant to come along with them (as well as a friend of Grant's named Billy Brennan). As expected, chaos ensues when they reach the island and there doesn't appear to be a way back home.

I wonder if Jurassic Park III was initially planned as a children's film. The body count is much lower than that of the previous two films, and there's more chase scenes than actual violence. The characters seem more like cartoon characters than actual people, and the tone of the film feels more like a sitcom than a Sci-Fi action flick. Not to mention one scene that where three of the main characters are digging through dino doo, as well as an unbelievably awful dream sequence involving a talking dinosaur.

My theory is further supported by Eric, the 12 year old son of the Kirbies (the couple that convinced Grant to come to the island with them) who survives on the island by himself for eight weeks and proves remarkably resourceful. This is a dramatic change from the children of the previous Jurassic Park films, but not a positive one.

The fact is, the Jurassic Park films already require you to suspend your disbelief a bit, but Eric's impressive survival skills (among almost a dozen convenient escapes) pushes it all over the line.

On the bright side, Jurassic Park III doesn't have a the horrendously slow beginning that the first two films had. The original film took at least an hour to really get going, and it took The Lost World a good 40 minutes. In Jurassic Park III, the chaos starts in about 20 minutes (which also shortens the overall run time to about 90 minutes). Unfortunately, the "chaos" isn't much more exciting than the talking in the first 20 minutes.

While the first two Jurassic Park films were extremely suspenseful and unpredictable, Jurassic Park III is almost the opposite. Any and all "boo" moments can be seen from a mile away, meaning that successful scares are few to none. The action scenes are uninteresting and lack excitement. One scene in particular seems almost an exact copy of the "dangling trailer" scene from The Lost World, only much shorter, and lacking any suspense.

Much of the suspense comes from the small body count. Now, there's no right way to say this part, but here goes: More people needed to get eaten. I already mentioned that relatively few people get eaten, but it needs to be emphasized. Adding to my theory that this was initially supposed to be a kid's film, basically all the main characters live. At one point, it seemed Jurassic Park III might have changed it's mind and killed off a semi-important character, but we later discover the character didn't die at all (and I might add that this weak twist was also highly predictable).

The entire film seems very cheap and just thrown together. The special effects, while not bad, are far less impressive (and believable) than those of the first two Jurassic Park flicks. And editing seems to be rushed as I spotted a large number of continuity issues.

The acting is weak, though this has more to with the script than the actual performances. Because the characters in the film are mostly idiots (some seems unusually stupid), the actors appear to be idiots as well, which is something a film should never do. Especially irritating is Tea Leoni as Amanda Kirby, portraying the single-most stupid and annoying character in the entire Jurassic Park film series.

John Williams did not score this third entry (despite his involvement with the first two), which only adds to both this film's slopped together feeling, and my ever-growing respect for the composer. However, replacement composer Don Davis does a pretty commendable job at utilizing Williams' existing themes. While Williams refrained from frequent use of the original's themes for The Lost World, Davis uses them freely and frequently. The score isn't as skilled as either of the previous entries in the series, but it's plenty of fun, and includes some very spirited arrangements of the main theme (especially at the end).

Downright awful in almost every respect, Jurassic Park III isn't funny, isn't exciting, and isn't memorable. Having more in common with the Honey I Shrunk The Kid sequels than any of the Jurassic Park films, Jurassic Park III is a highly flawed and highly disappointing movie in just about every regard. And yet, this is not the end. After over a decade of being in Development Hell, Jurassic Park IV is finally getting made, which will hopefully wash out the bad taste that Jurassic Park III has left behind.

*This review contains spoilers*

This is perhaps the most disappointing film I've seen all year. Despite brief moments of brilliance and a clever premise, Rear Window is a confused, often tedious, and mostly uninteresting thriller. The film's suspense is all contained within the last half hour, though much of the suspense is diluted through obvious character oversights and a curiously stupid villain.

L.B. Jefferies, a photographer, is confined to his apartment after breaking his leg on the job. With nothing else to do, he passes time by spying on the neighbors through their windows from his room, as he has an excellent view. But things get interesting (at least for Jefferies) when he notices suspicious behavior from one of the neighbors. Jefferies believes there to be a murder, but needs his girlfriend, Lisa and his nurse, Stella, to help him get evidence.

The majority of the film is just plain dull. While I like the premise that the whole film basically takes place from Jefferies' apartment as he spies on a potential murderer, the execution of this concept is sketchy at best.

It's sad how much potential this film had. Looking into the lives of others from Jefferies apartment is often entertaining and also innovative. The cinematography here is great, and the event organization impresses me. And yet, the film's greatest strength is also the film's greatest flaw.

The problem is, this aspect of the film is done so well, and made so interesting, it's nearly impossible to care at all about this relatively generic murder/paranoia case when you're much more curious about the various hinted sub-plots.

The murder doesn't actually occur until around 30 minutes into the movie, and there's a lot of speculation before any serious investigation. In other words, this movie is very dull for a very long time. For almost an hour and a half of this two hour film I was completely and utterly bored. The plot is dull, the sub-plots are under-used, the characters are mostly uninteresting, and there's little to care about.

However, once we get to the final half hour, things get interesting. A dog dies. There's an upset. And the suspense stars to kick in. Some daring moves are made, and then we get to absurdly idiotic finale. This is where I went from being interested in the main plot for the first time in the film, to almost yelling at the characters onscreen for being such imbeciles.

We see the villain advancing towards Jefferies, intent on killing him. Jefferies fends him off by setting off camera flash-bulbs, which temporarily blind him. The villain does a number of stupid things here. For one, as opposed for charging the crippled Jefferies, the villain slowly plods towards him, giving Jefferies plenty of time to call for help, prepare flash bulbs, etc. Then, the villain has the stupidity not to shield his eyes from the flash. I could excuse this the first time and even the second time. But after four flashes, with Jefferies covering his eyes each time beforehand, you'd think the villain would have the sense to at least close his eyes.

The actors are fine, but no one gives a memorable performance. This may be due to the unmemorable characters. L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) has only two defining characteristics: he's cranky and he's nosy. Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) is the cliche love interest with little personality. The saving grace in the acting department is Thelma Ritter as Jefferies' nurse Stella. She's funny, she gets the film's only chuckles, and she's smart too (unlike most of the other characters).

The ambient music (composed by Franz Waxman) is unique and adds character to the environment. Mostly piano and jazz pieces, the score adds an element of almost-creepiness to the production.

I truly don't understand how this mostly mediocre "thriller" has achieved so much acclaim. Rear Window isn't outright bad, it's just not good. Rear Window's enormous potential is wasted on a generic murder case and a bland cast. I truly wish I had enjoyed this movie more, and yet, Rear Window gave me no reason to enjoy it.

Well, I can finally say that I've seen a 2013 release that I genuinely love. About time. Star Trek Into Darkness is crazy fun, well-crafted, and has a great story as well. It's rare to see a summer blockbuster so intelligently made, and so easily enjoyable. I haven't had this much fun at the theater since last year's Wreck-It Ralph. Into Darkness may not have the accessibility of its predecessor, but this is still a superb action flick, and maybe the best action flick I'll see all year.

James T. Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise crew must locate terrorist John Harrison and bring him to justice. That's really all I can say without giving away any of the plot twists, as there are several. Be assured, this is a very intelligent story (especially in regards to most popcorn flicks), but there's not much that can be said without spoiling the film.

With that being said, you can probably tell that Star Trek Into Darkness is a highly unpredictable film, which is just one reason why I so enjoyed watching it. From the opening scene to the chaotic and suspenseful finale, you never know what's going to happen next, and it's a blast.

The action scenes are thrilling, the special effects are incredible, and the cinematography is beautiful. The script is great (though once again, there are a couple cringe-worthy lines), and of course; the Enterprise crew.

As was true of the predecessor, the main reason Star Trek Into Darkness is so enjoyable are the characters. Kirk is as likeable as ever, and his friendship with Spock plays out like a conversation between Han Solo and C-3PO. Dr. Bones McCoy gets his share of clever lines, Scotty is as hilarious as ever, and my personal favorite; Pavel Chekov, gets plenty of screen time as well.

Even Uhura, a character I had issues with in the first film, is made more likeable in this film. She's given more of a humorous vibe to her character, which makes her a lot more agreeable, even if she's still the weakest member of the Star Trek cast.

And then there's the villain. This is probably the area that Star Trek Into Darkness most improves upon it's predecessor. The villain in the previous film, Nero, was serviceable, but not particularly memorable. James Harrison on the other hand, the baddie of this film, is not only memorable, but unforgettable. He's menacing, he's smart, and he's responsible for a number of twists in the film. He also has a lot more depth than Nero, and his role adds a lot of psychology to the film at times.

As I've mentioned a few times, there are a lot of twists in this film. And while I did enjoy them, they also represent a possible road block for a few. The great thing about 2009's Star Trek is that it could be enjoyed without previous Star Trek knowledge. And while the same can mostly be said for Into Darkness, some of the film's biggest twists aren't going to have much of an impact on those that don't know a little Star Trek history.

The cast is great. I don't really feel like it's even necessary to go over the individual cast members; they were all fantastic. The single actor I wish to single out is Benedict Cumberbatch of BBC fame. Performing a stand-out villain, Cumberbatch perfectly portrays the many layers of the character with both elegance and sometimes shocking brutality.

The score by Michael Giacchino is not only excellent, I would say it's even better than his also-excellent score for the original. Big, grand, and with a main theme guaranteed to give you chills, this is another masterpiece from the master.

While dramatically darker in tone than it's predecessor and slightly less accessible, Star Trek Into Darkness is every bit as good as the original. Thrilling, funny, visually stunning, and unpredictable, this is the summer film to beat. I may not be a Trekkie, but I know a good film when I see one. I just hope there isn't another 4 year wait for the sequel.

One of my biggest movie-related regrets that I hadn't seen a single Charlie Chaplin film. The director and actor has received massive acclaim, and is still considered today to be one of the world's greatest directors. And yet, I had not seen any of his films. In fact, I had seen relatively few silent films at all. However, if Chaplin's other work is even nearly as good as City Lights, I will not hesitate to see his many other films.

Often considered one of Chaplin's best films, City Lights is the story of a young tramp (portrayed by Charlie Chaplin), who befriends a drunk millionaire. The tramp uses resources provided by the millionaire to give gifts to a young, blind girl, whom the tramp has fallen in love with. Things are a bit complicated, though, as when the millionaire is sober, he does not remember ever befriending the tramp.

Due to my limited exposure to films of this era, this review may seem a bit more pointed towards the art of silent film in general, as opposed to this specific film.

At times, City Lights plays like a big cartoon. Slap stick and quirky situations saturate this film, insuring that there is never a dull moment. This is not sophisticated comedy, and it does not take a sophisticated mind to enjoy. In fact, this is likely one of the reasons for City Light's success; it's accessibility.

Chaplin arranges a large number of very elaborate humorous sketches. A masterpiece in comic timing, City Lights is an absolute delight to watch. There are dozens of memorable scenes. If you're not smiling at any given point during the film, you're probably laughing.

Actually, I take back what I just said. For even though City Lights is a comedy, it's also a romance. Very touching, and even tear-jerking at times, City Lights proves that it's just as effective as pulling heart strings as it is at tickling funny bones.

The romance succeeds for a number of reasons. For one, we feel invested in the characters and their story. The film is only 82 minutes, which doesn't leave much time for the characters to be developed, and because City Lights is a silent film, only important lines are shown as subtitles. Everything else is silent. And yet, the characters are defined and layered, some more subtly than others.

The romance also works due to the excellent acting. Charlie Chaplin quite literally makes this movie. His both hilarious and touching performance as the tramp is sincere and humorous. Virginia Cherrill portraying the blind girl is another great performance, and Harry Myers effectively portrays the eccentric millionaire.

I also believe the romance actually benefits from not having dialogue. I say this dialogue is the number one thing that kills a good romance in a film. You could have the best actors and actresses in the world, but with bad dialogue, comes bad romance. By eliminating dialogue, City Lights also eliminates this common issue in modern film that's not just limited to romantic flicks.

The score (also composed by Charlie Chaplin, as well as Arthur Johnston) is delightful. Boasting a large number of catchy and clever tunes, the score is both diverse and entertaining. Music has a much more important role in silent films than in today's "talkies," but Chaplin and Johnston have no problem here.

Not all the sketches work as well as others, and the heavy slapstick may not meet everyone's tastes, but City Lights is a brilliant film that succeeds on both an emotional level, and a comedic one. Funnier and touching than most of today's films, City Lights isn't perfection, nor is it without flaw, but the sincerity and simplicity in which the story is presented is simply beautiful. I look forward to watching more of Chaplin's films in the near future.

There were a number of questions I asked myself as I sat watching Super Mario Bros. "What the heck is going on?" "Is that really supposed to be Toad?" "Why is everyone acting like imbeciles?" "Why am I still watching this movie?" Nearly 2 hours of my life is gone, thanks to Super Mario Bros., a movie that does everything wrong and nothing right. A serious contender for worst movie ever made, though I'll grant; it had quite a few unintentional laughs.

In a ludicrous plot that seems to be trying to make sense of the nonsensical world of the video game it's based upon, Super Mario Bros. is about two plumbers named Mario and Luigi (we're supposed to believe they're brothers, but they look at least 20 years apart in age), who find themselves in a different dimension. The dimension is ruled by a man, or dinosaur, or whatever he is, named King Koopa. From there on, there's something about a meteorite, de-evolution, and a big glob of living fungus.

I couldn't even begin to mention every single mistake this movie made. I can only go over a handful of flaws in this review, but trust me; I could go on for days.

Let's start with the plot, which I've briefly explained above. It's stupid, it's strange, and jammed with cliches. Everything from henchmen that turn good, child being left on someone's doorstep, clumsy romance, etc.

Much of the film feels like a live-action Saturday morning cartoon. In itself, that's not necessarily bad. In this case, believe me; it's bad. Gravity is defied, special effects are terrible, awful cinematography renders some parts of the film unwatchable at times. Need I say more?

And yet, I haven't even scratched the surface. Characters are stupid and obvious things are overlooked. Tie-ins with the Mario games are forced and uncreative. Plot holes and continuity problems are everywhere. Does this film do anything right?

While the characters' personalities are nothing like they are in the games, it's hard to blame the film for that. This film released in 1993, and at that point, none of the Mario characters had personality. Still, it should be noted that in the film, Luigi is the courageous one, and Mario is more cowardly (the opposite is true in the games). And speaking of Mario, his deep, harsh Brooklyn voice isn't at all the friendly voice we're used to hearing from the famous plumber, but once again, that's not really the film's fault, as no one had ever heard Mario speak before.

The acting is relatively terrible. I'll just save time by saying all the performances are awful, with one exceptions. Bob Hoskins as Mario really isn't that bad. He makes the most out of what he's given to work with, and the result is a passable, painless performance.

Alan Silverstri, what are you doing composing music for this film? You're better than this! It's depressing to see the composer of such classics like Back to the Future reduced to this. Still, the score is awful. The main theme is annoying, and there is no references from the original game's soundtrack in the score. There were lots of possibilities here, and Silverstri refuses to explore any of them.

The dated soundtrack is a nightmare. Various pop songs of yesteryear are in this movie, and they all made me wince in pain. The exception here being "Walk the Dinosaur." I laughed when I heard this playing, because this song is also featured in Ice Age 3, another dinosaur-oriented film starring John Leguizamo (who's terrible in this film, by the way).

Unwatchable, flawed, and laughably bad at times, Super Mario Bros. is an abomination. Forgetting everything that makes the Mario games enjoyable, Super Mario Bros. is a mess of fantastic proportions. It's unusual to see a film this bad. It's almost interesting. Maybe I should spend the next hour contemplating how awful this movie is. It will certainly be a much more entertaining way to spend my time than watching the movie was.

0/10

Well this was a pleasant surprise. Ocean's Thirteen, the threequel to the excellent Ocean's Eleven and the sequel to the almost-unwatchable Ocean's Twelve, is a fun and light conclusion to the Ocean's Trilogy. It's not as much fun as the original, but it's a vast improvement over the terrible sequel. Third chapters hardly ever work, but I commend Ocean's Thirteen for overcoming that trend.

The Ocean group (with the exception of Tess and Isabel) are brought together when Reuben is in poor health due to a massive shock received from being cheated of the rights of a hotel-casino he was planning to open. The con man responsible, Willy Bank, plans to open the hotel-casino himself, and win the prized Five Diamond award as well. Of course, the Ocean gang devise a devious plan of revenge that's every bit as satisfying for the Oceans, as it is for the audience.

Ocean's Thirteen isn't the strongest film in the trilogy, but it certainly fixes most of the problems that plagued the previous two.

For one, Tess and Isabel (the love interests for Danny Ocean and Rusty) have been completely eliminated from the script. They get a brief acknowledgement and little more. I'm grateful of this, because this completely eliminates the romance aspect. The romance was done so poorly in the first two, and this ultimately hurt the amount of fun that could be had. By throwing the romance out the window, there entire focus of the film is on pure fun.

While over half of the film is planning and set-up for the big con, there is hardly a dull moment to be found. The sheer excitement of the build-up was enough to keep me entertained. Combine that with a reasonable amount of humor, brief dilemmas, and the likeable characters, and you have a perfectly entertaining production. I was hardly ever bored, and the same could not be said for even the first Ocean's.

The plot is less confusing than that of Ocean's Twelve. The characters are just as fun as ever (though the screen time of many is far too short), and of course, the pay off at the end is very satisfying.

Still, despite many improvements, there are a few flaws that should not go overlooked. Like the first two, Ocean's Thirteen is more than a little implausible. Some parts are downright preposterous. Ocean's Thirteen is a smart film, but belief and common sense may need to be suspended on occasion.

And while not a direct flaw, it must be stated that Ocean's Thirteen just isn't as fun as Ocean's Eleven. It's not too far off, but I can't say I laughed as much on this third outing as I did during Ocean's Eleven. Still, Ocean's Thirteen provides it's share of fun and humor. I had a smile on my face throughout much of the film, and I was certainly enjoying myself.

The performances are great, though considering the lack of depth in each, they aren't as impressive. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are suitably suave as Danny Ocean and Rusty Ryan respectively. Matt Damon as Linus is as likeable as ever, and new additions to the cast are just as likeable.

The score by David Holmes is actually a huge improvement over both previous scores for the series. Like the film, it's fun and will make you smile, though those looking for any depth or true sophistication should look elsewhere.

Ocean's Thirteen is an indisputable improvement over Ocean's Twelve, while recapturing the easy fun of Ocean's Eleven. Easy to like and rarely dull, I had a great time watching Ocean's Thirteen. I didn't think I would ever say this, but now I want an Ocean's Fourteen.