Reviews by Joshua "LF"

Worst movie ever made? Boy howdy, they weren't kidding. Who could have possibly thought that Battlefield Earth was a good idea? Who? Surely someone working on the set could've seen how absolutely moronic this whole thing is. Even The Last Airbender had some decent special effects and tons of unintentional laughs. Battlefield Earth has absolutely nothing going for it, and now holds the honored position of being my least favorite movie.

This is where I'd usually explain the plot of the film, but in Battlefield Earth, everything is so needlessly confusing and sloppily made and edited, it's almost impossible to tell what's going on most of the time. To the best of my ability, the story is about John Travolta dressed up in awful attire and make-up, trying to take advantage of the primitive human race by using them to mine for gold. The humans, of course, are trying to break free from their captors.

This nearly two hour Sci-Fi film seems to never end. While the novelty of being unbelievably terrible may keep some entertained for a short while, I quickly became bored. One can only endure so much awfulness before becoming just plain tired of it.

To explain everything that Battlefield Earth did wrong would to be to write for years and years. And seeing as this movie has already wasted too much of my life, I'll just explain a small fraction of Battlefield Earth's flaws. This should be more than substantial evidence that this is a film to be avoided.

First off, the story is cliched, unintelligent, and told with such laziness, and terrible editing, there's no way to tell what's going on most of the time. In fact, after the movie was over, I didn't recall a single character's name. The manner in which the story is presented makes no sense. I hardly understood anything.

The film appears to repeat itself dozens of times. There were at least a dozen times in this film where Jonnie Tyler (the human protagonist) is being choked by Terl (John Travolta). At least five scenes involve Terl babbling about how stupid Ker (his assistant) is. And Jonnie Tyler makes at least three escape attempts. Not to mention the excessive use of slo-mo and slanted camera angles. Seriously, every other camera shot was done at a slanted angle, even when people were just talking with each other. People today complain about shaky cam, but if more audiences saw what too much angled camera shots looked like, they would have nothing to say.

Special effects are terrible. Costumes are terrible (Breathing devices that go into your nostrils? What were they thinking?!). Make-up is terrible. Dialogue is laughably terrible. And don't even get me started about acting.

The score by Elia Cmiral is loud and obnoxious (like the movie). It focuses too much on poor percussion than actual music. I can only remember two scenes where the score actually had a tune.

If you're dying to see what many proclaim to be "the worst movie ever," the full version of Battlefield Earth is on YouTube. If you want to save yourself two hours of painfully terrible (and painfully boring) cinema, you'd be better off staring at a blank wall for the same amount of time. Unintentional laughs last only as long as you can tolerate bad and boring cinema. Ugh, I can't believe John Travolta still has a career.

0/10

Singin' in the Rain is often hailed as the greatest musical ever made. It's constantly referenced in modern film, and has been universally labeled as a masterpiece. So would it be strange if I were to say this film would've been much better without the musical numbers?

I have nothing against musicals. Some of my favorite films are musicals. But the songs in Singin' in the Rain are mostly mediocre and instantly forgettable, diminishing an otherwise entertaining and enjoyable production.

Don Lockwood is enjoying life as a Hollywood star, even if he does have to work with the irritating Lina Lamont. However, when a new kind of film known as "talkies" becomes popular, Lockwood, as well as his two friends, Cosmo Brown and Kathy Selden must learn to adjust to this new kind of cinema.

As I mentioned before, the musical numbers and songs are among the only things keeping me from giving Singin' in the Rain a better score. I wanted to love this film, but I can only truthfully say that I liked it. More often than not, the songs serve more as filler than something that actually progresses the story, or enhances it.

Only the title song, "Singin' in the Rain," and "Moses Supposes" remain in memory. All other numbers are unremarkable and uninteresting. If you asked me to recount any of the lyrics to any of the other songs, I would struggle to come up with more than a few words.

This is a huge shame, because outside of the musical numbers, Singin' in the Rain is a cheery and entertaining film. The characters are well developed, which makes the story richer. Don Lockwood is confident, but only when the public opinion of himself is positive. Lina Lamont has fame and fortune, and everything she wants, but becomes grumpy when she is not loved by Lockwood. To contrast, Cosmo Brown is a nobody, but is thankful for what he gets and is always positive. Kathy Selden is the most uninteresting character. The spunk and personality displayed in her first few scenes disappears after she makes amends with Lockwood.

Likewise, the acting is excellent. Gene Kelly pulls off confident Don Lockwood perfectly, while Donald O'Connor is perfect as Cosmo Brown. Jean Hagen is great for the despicable Lina Lamont, and Debbie Reynolds makes the best of her character, Kathy Selden. But it's Douglas Fowley who steals most of the scenes as the cranky director.

It's a shame that in a film where music is the main point, that the musical numbers are also the weakest aspect. The actual film is good, corny, feel-good stuff that's fun to watch. You get some laughs, you get some smiles, it's all in good fun. Unfortunately, the songs lead to some terribly dull stretches that break the flow and ruin this otherwise highly entertaining film.

I guess I should mention that I'm a sucker for a good mystery novel. I love reading them, and I enjoy being surprised at the end. Of course, the best mysteries won't rely entirely on a shocking conclusion. Witty dialogue, memorable characters, reasonable suspense, and most importantly, plot twists, must be peppered and laced throughout. The great thing about Charade, is that it takes everything that you could possibly want in a mystery novel, and puts it all under one roof.

A young woman named Regina Lambert finds herself in possession of a large sum of money when her husband dies and leaves her $250,000. Unfortunately for her, three men are convinced that the money is theirs, and they're determined to get it back. With no one else to turn to, Regina puts her trust in a stranger named Peter Joshua. The two must now not only outsmart the three crooks, but also solve the mystery Regina's husband has left behind.

Charade ingeniously blends the best elements of any mystery book, into a single film, creating an engaging and entertaining experience that's both intelligent and exciting. Clever dialogue and some quirky situations helps inject humor and fun into the production, while a handful of chase scenes keeps things exciting. With the added threat of three crooks living right next door, Charade is rarely dull.

The romance between the two leads is surprisingly well done. It's a little overdone at times, but it's not too schmaltzy, nor too formulaic. It finds a perfect balance that few films ever achieve. The chemistry between the leads is excellent, as their personalities easily compliment each other. Modern romance films should take notes.

The mystery itself is genius. There are several plot twists throughout, but all of them seem minuscule when compared to the grand finale. While many similar films often fails to provide much punch during the "revealing" stage, Charade pulls of it's big twist at the end beautifully.

Characters are both memorable, and likeable (or dislikeable, depending on intentions), with great acting to boot. Audrey Hepburn as Regina may appear helpless at first, but she quickly becomes an independent and brave woman, ready to fend for herself. Cary Grant as Peter is suave, but without being romantic. His maturity contrasts Regina's childishness. The three crooks (James Corburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass) are menacing, though not as defined as other characters. Jacques Marin as Inspector Grandpierre gets several laughs as the cranky policeman.

The score, composed by Henry Mancini, is excellent. Often jazzy, but not without suspense and tension, it's a solid work from the master composer.

A truly thrilling and surprising film, Charade is an extremely charming and masterfully made production. With a great cast, witty screenplay, and some great twists, this is the ideal mystery movie. If you're the kind that enjoys mystery novels, this is for you. If you're not into mystery novels, try it anyway.

After the success of Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland, there have been several attempts at remaking classics fantasies with a new twist and/or with expensive special effects. In fact, it's incredible that Disney has waited this long to release another high-profile fantasy flick. Though this might indicate that Disney is really taking their time to craft a quality product, it actually turns out to be quite the opposite. Oz the Great and Powerful is a soulless and hugely disappointing production that clearly exists only to make money.

Oscar Diggs, a sleazy magician, has his world turned upside down when he's swept into the land of Oz. He's quickly proclaimed as a prophecy-fulfilling wizard, who is now responsible for getting rid of the Wicked Witch. Teamed with a flying monkey named Finley, and China Girl; a living china doll, Oscar must fulfill the prophecy and rid Oz of the Wicked Witch.

Oz the Great and Powerful is a hugely mechanical and by-the-numbers film, lacking human touch or personality of its own. It contains all the basic elements that guarantee box office success: A talking animal (Finley), the basic "cute" character (China Girl), showy special effects, and an A-list star. Oz the Great and Powerful does almost nothing unexpected, and lacks any kind of magic or wonder.

The film starts well. Starting in black and white (which eventually turns to color once Oscar reaches Oz), the opening titles boast a vintage flair that really produces a magical feel. For the first 10 minutes, the film is clever, sometimes funny, and relatively well done. In fact, I was really enjoying myself, up until the point when we reach Oz. That's when things start to go downhill.

I was surprised at how little Oz the Great and Powerful has to do with The Wizard of Oz. Being a prequel, I was expecting many references and tie-ins with the original. Instead, it does almost nothing with the Oz world or characters. There's are a handful of similarities and obscure references, but Oz the Great and Powerful made very little use of the license. There's no ruby slippers, no references to Somewhere Over the Rainbow, and no foreshadowing of Dorothy. The few elements that are carried over from the original feel forced and tacked on, implying that the Oz name had little to do with the story, and more to do with increasing ticket sales.

The production just feels a lot like a Disney Channel sitcom. If not for the flashy special effects, this would feel right at home with Disney Channel's TV movies. Relationship drama, a tired and predictable plot, and stereotype "teen" humor are all major elements of Oz the Great and Powerful.

The editing is done surprisingly poorly. There are several flaws in continuity I spotted, including extras disappearing when camera angles are changed, or distances between characters being altered. Laziness abounds from all sides of the spectrum.

The film is tonally uneven. As a romance, it's too clumsy. As a drama, it lacks unique characters or a decent plot. As a comedy, much of the humor feels like it was pulled out of a stock bag. Seriously, I don't think there was more than maybe one or two original gags in the whole film.

I suppose I should state the obvious here and say that the visuals are fantastic. While not as dazzling as Burton's Alice In Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful boasts some great visual effects. Apart from one less-than-fantastic looking lion (and the fact that Finley doesn't look much like a monkey), the CGI is fantastic.

Acting is poor, and often clumsy. James Franco was completely the wrong actor for Oscar Diggs. He's not subtle enough to pull of the character's many layers, and he just comes across as someone with a multiple personality disorder. In one scene, he's a genuinely caring and kind man, in the next, he's leaving a little girl to walk home in the dark. Do you see a problem here?

The other actors don't fare much better. Mila Kunis as Theodora is cheesy and overly dramatic, much like Michelle Williams as Glinda, and Rachel Weisz as Evanora. Zach Braff provides a decidedly unenthusiastic and generic voice for Finley.

Danny Elfman's score is a much appreciated bright spot in this disappointing film. While most of Elfman's scores sound extremely similar to each other, his score for Oz the Great and Powerful is excellent, and much different than his usual work. Grand and very playful at times, this is certainly one of Elfman's best scores.

While mostly entertaining, Oz the Great and Powerful feels more like a corporate product than something anyone put any actual effort into. A shameless attempt at cashing in on a hot trend, Oz the Great and Powerful has little more than sparkly visuals to fall back on. Just as Oscar Diggs uses fancy illusions to steal audience's money, Oz the Great and Powerful uses vivid imagery to mask a product made purely for money and merchandising.

Perhaps what gets me the most about Oz the Great and Powerful is how much potential it had. The possibilities of a Wizard of Oz prequel are actually quite astounding. It's a shame that all creative possibilities were wasted into making this squarely mediocre production, that should've been so much more.

Note: This review will contain minor spoilers, though nothing major will be revealed.

Jack the Giant Slayer has been getting many comparisons to last year's John Carter. Both were big-budget March releases, and both had high hopes for sequels. However, the box office returns for both films have been extremely underwhelming. While I am no fan of John Carter, at least it wasn't a complete disaster. The same cannot be said of Jack the Giant Slayer.

Inspired by the classic fairy tale, Jack and the Beanstalk, this modern re-imagining follows more or less the same story initially. 18 year-old Jack is to sell his horse in the market, though he is swindled by a crafty monk, and given only "magic" beans for the horse. Jack is warned not to get them wet, but of course, Jack fails to keep the beans dry. So, Jack's house is swept off the ground and into the sky by a giant beanstalk, taking a young princess named Isabella with it. Jack volunteers to climb the beanstalk in order to rescue Isabella, along with a handful of other individuals. From here on out, there is almost nothing that even vaguely resembles the original fairy tale.

It would be impossible to specifically name everything that Jack the Giant Slayer does wrong (especially when I'm trying to keep spoilers to a minimum), but even by just naming a fraction of the things this film does wrong, this review will be plenty long.

The film kicks off with an ill-conceived sequence that's entirely CG. It's supposed to be something of a prologue, but the CG lacks detail, and just looks primitive. This prologue would've looked quite impressive in a video game, but in a big-budget fantasy film, audiences expect a lot more. One wonders why this prologue wasn't done in live-action. Time constraints? Budget? A combination of the two? Either way, it's a poor start to a film that only gets worse from there.

The plot is nothing to write home about. It's the basic 'Save the Princess' concept that's been exhausted and stretched to it's breaking point. Even Jack the Giant Slayer couldn't do much with this concept, so an extra half hour padding at the end is tacked on. This last half hour is occupied by a battle between the humans and giants. This is without a doubt, the high point of the film, but it's still riddled with flaws, obvious oversights, and even a cop-out or two.

Jack the Giant Slayer is also tonally uneven in many ways. For one, it attempts to be a romance, a comedy, and an action flick all at once. While this isn't an unusual blend, and many films have pulled it off successfully, Jack the Giant Slayer fails miserably in this respect. The comedy is often lowbrow or childishly crude. Boogers, farting, and belching are just a few things that Jack the Giant Slayer expects us to laugh at. The only laugh this film got out of me was during a clever, but brief reference to a previous film on co-Star Ewan McGregor's resume.

The romance is done clumsily and predictably. If you can't tell from the minute we meet Isabella that she and Jack would fall in love, you are clearly new to the world of film. The romance feels more like an afterthought, or as an attempt to bring girls into the audience, as Jack the Giant Slayer is a complete boy's film, and proud of it.

Characters are underdeveloped and uninteresting, and the acting is mediocre at best. The lead, Jack, is portrayed by Nicholas Hoult, who's role mainly consists of looking bewildered or terrified, until the second half where he shifts into a personality-less hero. Jack's single defining trait is his fear of heights, which is resolved within 20 minutes of the discovery of the fear. Eleanor Tomlinson plays Princess Isabella, a bland character made blander by lifeless acting. The character does nothing to distinguish herself from the thousands of other damsels in distress that Hollywood has given us.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in the acting department is Ewan McGregor's performance. Despite being a usually capable actor, McGregor's performance is monotone and forgettable (though this may have something to do with the equally monotone and forgettable character he portrays). The only interesting character in the entire film is Wicke (played by Ewen Bremner), who is killed off within the first 45 minutes.

In addition to the underdeveloped characters, there are many other elements of the film that are not explained, or are quickly dropped or forgotten. The significance of a certain magical crown, which the movie focuses quite a bit on, is never truly explained. Also, while the giants are set aflame, slashed with swords, and forced to swallow large groups of bees, they do not die, or even seem very affected. Yet, they seem easily weakened by ordinary arrows.

The visuals, while sometimes inventive and impressive, seem a bit underwhelming and even unnecessary at times. The giants, for example, are completely CGI, and simply aren't realistic enough to even present the illusion that they're actual living beasts in the film. Would it have been so hard to use real actors for the giants and just balloon them to a larger proportion? It would've been much more convincing at any rate.

The score, composed by John Ottman, is mostly forgettable. While there are rare moments of John Williams-esque action music, the score is fairly generic and uninteresting, not unlike most elements of the film.

I felt like I set my expectations relatively low walking into this film. And somehow, Jack the Giant Slayer went way below my expectations. How? Through poor acting, generic plot, weak characters, unnecessary CGI, and a mass of contradictions and obvious oversights. It is obvious that a sequel was planned for Jack the Giant Slayer. A nonsensical and somewhat confusing attempt of a sequel hook was made at the end of the film. Of course, due to dismal box office results, it appears that a sequel would be highly unlikely for this fairytale flunk.

Last year, I said in my review of John Carter, that if some of the content had been cut out, it could've been a PG-rated flick that kids could see, as the film would certainly be more appreciated by children. The same can be said for Jack the Giant Slayer. There seems to be just enough violence and language to push this film to PG-13. Toned down, this could've been a more family-friendly PG-rated film. Seeing as the nature of this film is more childish and cliched, kids would certainly get more out of this one.

However, because this has been marketed as a film for teens on up, audiences are expecting a rousing action film. Though what they're getting is a film that should've been tailored for children, where it certainly would've been more successful.

Film adaptions of books must always reach a certain balance of differences and similarities to the book being adapted. Films like Holes (based on Louis Sachar's book of the same name) shows us what it looks like when a film is too faithful to it's source material. The film becomes predictable for those who have read the book, and frankly, the source material for Holes did not need a film.

On the other hand, films like the adaption of the first three books of A Series of Unfortunate Events, shows us what can happen if a film differs to much from the book. It greatly irritates those who have read the source material, and like Holes, the series did not need a film.

And Then There Were None (based on Agatha Christie's novel of the same name) falls a bit more to the "too different" side of the spectrum. And while And Then There Were None is still an engaging film, and doesn't deter too much from the source material, some changes may have pushed it a bit far.

And Then There Were None is about 10 people who are brought to a remote island, each for their own reasons. They are to stay in a house owned by a Mr. Owen, though none of the 10 guests have even met the man! Despite this, most of the guests are enjoying themselves until a gramophone record accuses all 10 guests of murder. The guests are then slowly killed, one by one, in accordance to a nursery rhyme, Ten Little Indians. The guests come to the conclusion that one of them is the murderer, and they must figure out which one it is until they all perish.

There are indeed differences between the book and film. While most of the differences are subtle, there are a few more major ones (specifically, the conclusion which differs dramatically from the book). I won't spoil anything, but I will say that most of the changes (minus the conclusion) are unlikely to be more than irritating to those who have read the book.

There is certainly a difference in tone. While the book is dark, grim, and extremely suspenseful, the film adaption takes a different route. The subject matter is still dark, but there's a lot of humor in the script, which eases the tone to make the film slightly lighter fare. The suspense is also played down a bit, though those who haven't read the book may find this to be a much more tense experience.

Though the humor is agreeable, some changes are less so. While I won't spoil anything, the conclusion was relatively unsatisfactory, especially compared to that of the book. Also, many of the subtleties of the book are completely lost of the film. And at least one of the deaths don't follow the nursery rhyme accordingly.

Another most unagreeable change is the back story of one of the characters. Vera Claythorne's back story is completely changed, despite the fact that in the book, her backstory is quite pivotal to the conclusion (which may also account to the changed ending).

Differences aside, And Then There Were None is still an entertaining film. Characters are well developed, especially considering the fact that there are 10 primary characters that are developed within a film just under 100 minutes. The personalities are given a surprising amount of depth, even those with less screen time, though once again, the books does a superior job at this.

Suspense is well kept up (especially in the last half hour), though less so than in the book. The murders, while sometimes differing to that in the book, can be unexpected and even alarming, while at the same time, eliminating even the slightest bit of gore.

The acting is solid. The general cast is excellent. The only complaints here regard June Deprez's role as Vera Claythorne. She plays the role without much depth or personality. Perhaps this was due to the script, but at any rate, Vera is not the more interesting character she was in the book.

The score, composed by Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco, has it's charms (and the recurring tune of Ten Little Indians is a nice, if obligatory touch), but it seems a bit lacking overall. There isn't much by the way of character themes, or the music is surprisingly suspense-less most of the time.

Despite my many nitpicks regarding the differences between the book and film, And Then There Were None is still an enjoyable film in many respects. Though the hugely different conclusion and back story changes may be just enough to turn off fans of the book, this is still an excellent mystery film, if a bit lacking compared to Christie's novel.

It's certainly been a while since I've seen a film so easy to like and purely entertaining as Catch Me If You Can. Fun and well paced, though not lacking in intelligence, Catch Me If You Can is ideal film. It doesn't reach the masterpiece status many proclaim it has, but it's a confident and enjoyable ride, that even boasts some surprising emotional depth.

Inspired by actual events, Catch Me If You Can follows the story of Frank Abagnale Jr., who runs away after his parent's divorce at the age of 16. Following in his dad's footsteps, Frank becomes a masterful conman, stealing millions of dollars. However, Carl Hanratty, an FBI agent, is hot on Frank's heels. As Frank continues to successfully evade the law, he also faces difficulties of his own, such as old wounds from his parent's divorce.

While not as fast paced as one might expect from such a film, Catch Me If You Can never feels long or boring, despite the lengthy run time; nearly two and a half hours. The film's consistent cleverness, and intriguing plot keeps the audience completely captivated for the entire duration.

The film works as a number of things. It makes for an excellent comedy. Frank Abagnale Jr. is fiendishly clever, and gets into some interesting (and humorous) situations by faking his identity. Catch Me If You Can also works as an action film, due to it's "chase" premise.

Perhaps most surprisingly, Catch Me If You Can also works as a drama. While providing breezy fun, this is also a surprisingly touching film. All of Frank's schemes and cons are done to make his father proud. For despite the devastating divorce, Frank really loves his dad, and this adds an emotional element of the film. Catch Me If You Can would've been a pleasant and enjoyable film without this element. But this extra layer makes Catch Me If You Can memorable, and helps separate it from the dozens of other similar films out there today.

Leonardo DiCaprio is excellent in the leading role as Frank Abagnale Jr. His love for his father, and his easy confidence makes him a surprisingly likable character. Tom Hanks as the persistent FBI Agent, Carl Hanratty is also well done (the amusing Brooklyn accent helps). In a role that's similar to DiCaprio's, Christopher Walken portrays Frank's loving father, who's also a bit of a conman himself. Walken's performance really boosts the emotional umph in this film, making his role the standout in the film.

John William's score is very playful, and is also delightfully jazzy. The child-like main theme and heavy use of the saxophone are memorable staples of the score. The music truly enhances the film, and makes up one of William's most underrated scores.

Catch Me If You Can isn't your average action flick. It's emotional depth and intelligence distinguishes it from others of it's kin, while it's cleverness and humor ensures that it's a fun ride for all. While there are brief moments of genius, Catch Me If You Can isn't a masterpiece, or even close. But it's extremely memorable, and well made, and a lot different than most films of the same nature.

A downfall to creating a film based off of well known true events is that the conclusion is spoiled, therefore, leaving little in the conclusion that is unexpected. Therefore, these kinds of films tend to rely more on the journey to provide the emotional umph, then the actual conclusion. When the film is made to be suspenseful, this doesn't always work so well. Films like Valkyrie shows us how this can fail. Films like Apollo 13 shows us how it can work.

Three astronauts, named Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise, find themselves in a dangerous predicament when after blasting off into space, begin having extreme rocket malfunctions. Problem after problem occurs, and things are seeming really, really bleak. With just about everything going wrong, it's a frantic survival tale, where the three men are desperately fighting for their lives.

Despite being based off of well known true events, Apollo 13 still provides a suspenseful ride. Though the first half-hour or so is a bit slow, the pace quickly picks up quite a bit, and the film rarely feels long after that. This is quite an accomplishment for a film that's nearly 2 and a half hours long.

Despite being a highly suspenseful and exciting film, Apollo 13 is not what one might consider a "joy ride." The emotional aspect of the film keeps us in pain and sadness for the families waiting to hear whether their husbands and fathers will return from space alive. And of course, worrying families aren't comforted by exaggerating media that are squeezing every last drop of suspense out of the already emotionally taxing situation. By playing a more stressful and tragic game with the family's involvement, Apollo 13 becomes a more intelligent and thoughtful film than it might've been otherwise.

The families aren't the only stressful aspect the film plays from. Back at Mission Control, the entire staff is frantically trying to find a way to guide the astronauts back home. Going with little sleep and lots of coffee, each small victory is a reason for celebration, though there are no rests until the men are safely back.

Solid acting further assists this. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton, as Jim Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise respectively are very good in their roles, as is Ed Harris as the Apollo 13 Flight Director, Gene Kranz. The standout here, however, is Jim's wife, Marilyn, played by Kathleen Quinlan. She portrays a distraught and pained wife in a performance that we truly believe. There's some deceptive depth in this role, and Quinlan nails it.

The visuals are quite nice. While not particularly breathtaking, the effects look good, and they look real. The zero gravity effects specifically are very good. It's certainly a breath of fresh air from the often excessive CGI effects in film today.

The score, by James Horner, is good, but it's an interesting approach to the film. While one might expect a film in space to have a much more grand score, James Horner composes a less loud and brassy score. While there are moments of triumph in the music, they come less often then one might have expected. Also, in moments of high tension (and there are several), Horner takes another interesting approach to the music. Rather than composing pieces at higher tempos, these pieces are usually played at a slower speed, letting the onscreen action carry most of the tension. Whether this is a plus or a minus is up to your own tastes.

Apollo 13 is a well made and well acted film. Told with suspense and precision, this is a fine example of true event films done right. Still, while there's not much here in the way of flaws (though some might argue that it's a bit repetitive), Apollo 13 also just misses being a truly great film. It's certainly an enjoyable one, and making a 2 hour film endurable is an achievement in itself, but I couldn't help but wonder while I was watching Apollo 13, why I wasn't loving it. The funny thing is now that I've seen the film, I still couldn't tell you.

I have seen relatively few karate/kung-fu oriented films, so The Forbidden Kingdom, I knew, was going to be a bit different than what I was used to seeing in films. But if the average kung-fu film is anything like The Forbidden Kingdom, I will certainly be staying far away from the genre for a very long time.

In a cliche-ridden plot, as preposterous as it is formulaic, kung-fu nerd, Jason, finds a mysterious looking staff in a video store, that sends him back in time to ancient China where he meets Lu Yan, an immortal and intensely skilled kung-fu master who, along with a girl named Sparrow and The Silent Monk, go on a long journey to free the Monkey King.

Yup, you read that right; the Monkey King.

There are so many things that I disliked about this film and so many things it did wrong, I could go on for days. I'll have to settle with explaining the key errors in the following paragraphs.

Let's start with the plot which covers the over-used concept of a wanna-be wimp being trained by a master at whatever art the wanna-be has always dreamed of. It's been done many times before. Karate Kid, Star Wars, The Sword in the Stone, etc. Having the most in common with Karate Kid, The Forbidden Kingdom does little, if anything, to distinguish itself from the dozens of films with the same basic concept.

The story has tons and tons of cliches in it. Excluding the one listed previously, we have: 1) Depressing back story by supporting character. 2) Main character is bullied, only to beat the bullies up when he becomes trained. 3) Oh, and of course the inevitable "moment of doubt" scene where the hero begins to doubt his abilities. There are dozens more, though they make more sense in the context of the film.

Among the many trendy and overused gimmicks, the slow-motion shots are the most exhausted in this film. While I stopped counting at 10, I'd wager there are at least 30 slow-mo shots in this film.

Let's move on to the action, which is downright terrible. With most of the conclusions to these combat scenes being relatively inevitable, there's little presented here that builds any suspense. Choreography is pretty terrible, and frankly, none of the fights look real. The punches and kicks don't always connect with the opponent. Yet, they react with pain, and an embarrassingly exaggerated "punch" sound effect accompanies the blow. The action is gimmicky, tedious, and quickly dull.

The worst offender of the action scenes is the first one that appears at the beginning, which involves the Monkey King in combat with a group of nameless warriors. It's poorly made, looks cheap and phony, and is simply not a good omen for the rest of the film.

Though I could go on and on about the action scenes, I'll move on to the characters, almost all of which are old and tired stereotypes. We have the big bad villain in the form of the Jade Warlord. He has no motive, no memorable characteristics, and no personality. Then we have the main character, Jason, who is our typical underdog hero (portraying a character that's eerily similar to the one he played in Sky High). We have Sparrow (who, by the way, is the supporting character with the depressing back story I mentioned earlier), the personality-less romantic interest, though even the romance is toned down so that it's almost insignificant, making her seem completely unnecessary to the film. We also have The Silent Monk, who has no personality, like Sparrow, and his single unique feature is that he's played by Jet Li. And whoever came up with the frequently giggling and very weird Monkey King should be given a good slap in the head.

All of these characters are acted blandly (though some of that may have to do with their equally bland characters). The only bright spot in this area (and the only bright spot in the film) is Jackie Chan's performance of Lu Yan. In a role that could only be described as an Asian version of Jack Sparrow, Chan plays an often drunk karate master that provides a few smiles, and the only noteworthy performance and character in the film.

The score, composed by David Buckley is fairly poor. Relying on kung fu cliches and occasionally electric guitars, Buckley's score is forgettable and dull.

Crammed with cliches, poorly made action scenes, undeveloped characters, and kung fu camp, The Forbidden Kingdom looks like a cheap, made-for-TV disaster. While it's worth seeing for unintentional laughs (and you will get quite a few), there's little of redeeming value here. At The Forbidden Kingdom's high point, Lu Yan is making wisecracks about Jason's lack of kung-fu skill. At it's lowest point, Jet Li is urinating on Jackie Chan's head.

Just kidding! That was probably the high point.

There have been a number of Peter Pan films released over many years. From the cult classic, "Hook," to Disney's animated adaption, Peter Pan has gotten more than his fair share of publicity. Disney's Peter Pan has long since been my favorite Neverland adventure put to film, but it seems that it has now been dethroned. Not only is Finding Neverland an engaging and fascinating film, it's also a magical and enchanting experience.

J.M. Barrie is trying to get over the poor reception from his last play by writing a new adventure. To find inspiration, he goes to the park where he meets the Davies, a family of four boys and a widowed mother named Sylvia. Barrie immediately falls in love with the family. Most of the boys enjoy playing with Barrie as they use their imagination to become pirates, cowboys, among other things. Only one of the boys, Peter, refuses to leave reality. As Barrie slowly opens Peter's mind to the world of imagination, the Davies soon inspire Barrie to discover and develop Neverland.

This isn't a documentary. Nor is it a cheesy family drama. Finding Neverland, like the film's portrayal of J.M. Barrie, is playful, a little eccentric, and intelligent. It's a family film that avoids all the common pitfalls of it's own kind. Finding Neverland isn't formulaic, and it doesn't feel the need to pander to kids.

In fact, despite it being labeled as a family film, it's unlikely to appeal to children. It's slower than most family films, lacks action, and while there is humor, it's much more subtle than what children are used to.

The visual effects are superb. As Barrie and the Davie boys explore fantasies, their surroundings change into something of a storybook setting where the children can explore and play. Editing between real life and their imagination make this more than just a novelty. It's an innovation, and a true achievement in editing, visuals, and storytelling.

As Barrie slowly gathers inspiration from his surroundings that will inevitably make up the world of Neverland, we see glimpses of his ideas appear in the real world. A cranky and tyrannical grandmother with a hook in her hand. Boys jumping on their beds and flying out windows. With each inspiration, comes a feeling of magic. Like seeing the magician at work.

The acting is very well done. Johnny Depp, in one of his less bizarre roles, portrays J.M. Barrie with a childlike playfulness and innocence. While his accent may be a bit off putting (he's supposed to be British, so why does he sound Scottish...?), Depp buries himself in the role, and it's absolutely enchanting. Freddie Highmore is excellent as Peter Davies, especially considering his age at the time of production. Kate Winslet is appropriately distraught, but fun loving as Sylvia Davies, and Dustin Hoffman is great in the slightly more humorous role as a play producer that funds Barrie's work, despite his skeptical attitude towards him.

The score, for which the film won an Oscar for, is composed by Jan A. P. Kaczmarek. Like the film, it's magical and beautiful, and has an element of playfulness to it. By absorbing itself into the film, the score enhances the production greatly, and adds to the overall enchantment and wonder.

While a film about J.M. Barrie and his inspirations may initially seem more like a homework assignment than a film, Finding Neverland achieves grand heights as a well made and magical production. It's not quite a masterpiece, but it's not far off. If nothing else, it's a family film that won't insult the intelligence of it's older films, and that in itself is a rare treat.