Reviews by Joshua "LF"

I shouldn't have to tell you that To Kill A Mocking Bird is considered to be one of the greatest films ever to be made. I shouldn't have to inform you that this film is based off of the book by the same name, which is met with an equal amount of praise. But what I say now is important: This film is certainly worthy of all the praise.

To Kill A Mocking Bird is based off of Harper Lee's book by the same name. It's about a young girl named Scout, and her older brother Jem, and their puny friend, Dill. Scout's father, Atticus (Gregory Peck) takes a case to defend a black man named Tom Robinson, who is charged of raping a white woman.

That's really all there is to it. It's a simple tale, but an affecting one.

One of the best parts of the film, is the title sequence: A skillfully edited opening displaying wonderful cinematography and a beautiful score. During the title sequence, we see Scout, rummaging through a box of play things. She hums an eerie tune as she doodles with crams, creating a magical opening sequence with a slight creepy tinge.

The acting is wonderful. Some of the best I've seen. The kids are very loveable (though Dill may take some getting used to), and Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus, is strong, though I still don't believe it's good enough to win an award (though it did). People say it's an understated performance, but that doesn't change my mind. Peck did well, but not award-winningly well.

I briefly mentioned the score, and I will mention it again. It is composed by Elmer Bernstein. The music captures the innocence and wonder of being a child, and accents and punctuates the film's main feel. The score emphasizes on the piano, with good use of the flute, and good use of the violin later on. Towards the end, Bernstein appears to have a fancy for harmonicas, which he utilizes well. To Kill A Mocking Bird's score is one of the best scores I've ever seen. Don't miss it.

The film has an innocent, child-like feel, but when Tom Robinson's trial starts, that innocence goes away. It returns, and strongly too, during Scout and Jem's Halloween walk back home. As I mentioned before, the music does wonders for capturing that feeling.

The movie is not extremely faithful to the book, however. It keeps the main points, but many things are changed or altered. Most of the character's roles are shrunken, and some characters have been omitted all together. Much of the humor from the book came from the narrating, but without a narrator, much of that humor is lost.

Also, the book took it's time with everything. The film is odd, in the way that it is over two hours long, yet it doesn't feel very long. But at the same time, the events go by much quicker in the movie then in the book, but the movie doesn't feel rushed. It retains that laid back feeling.

To Kill A Mocking Bird still has humor and charm, but not quite as much as the book. I am not going to lower the score of the film due to the differences between the book and film, but I do want to point it out. There are many characters who didn't get enough screen time, however, and in the book, it wasn't like that.

But I digress.

In an odd way, To Kill A Mocking Bird (the film, not the book), reminded me of the film adaption of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. I very much enjoyed the book series, but it didn't work as a movie. Too much humor is in the narrative, so a lot of humor didn't translate well. Also, the film rushed many of the events, and changed things quite a bit.

To Kill A Mocking Bird is very similar in all these respects, but the difference is this: To Kill A Mocking Bird works.

Even if To Kill A Mocking Bird doesn't give some of the characters enough screen time, this film is certainly worthy of the praise it has received. Wonderful acting, an incredible musical score, and a meaningful story are only a small segment of what makes To Kill A Mockingbird the masterpiece it is.

I shouldn't have to tell you that To Kill A Mocking Bird is considered to be one of the greatest films ever to be made. I shouldn't have to inform you that this film is based off of the book by the same name, which is met with an equal amount of praise. But what I say now is important: This film is certainly worthy of all the praise.

To Kill A Mocking Bird is based off of Harper Lee's book by the same name. It's about a young girl named Scout, and her older brother Jem, and their puny friend, Dill. Scout's father, Atticus (Gregory Peck) takes a case to defend a black man named Tom Robinson, who is charged of raping a white woman.

That's really all there is to it. It's a simple tale, but an affecting one.

One of the best parts of the film, is the title sequence: A skillfully edited opening displaying wonderful cinematography and a beautiful score. During the title sequence, we see Scout, rummaging through a box of play things. She hums an eerie tune as she doodles with crams, creating a magical opening sequence with a slight creepy tinge.

The acting is wonderful. Some of the best I've seen. The kids are very loveable (though Dill may take some getting used to), and Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus, is strong, though I still don't believe it's good enough to win an award (though it did). People say it's an understated performance, but that doesn't change my mind. Peck did well, but not award-winningly well.

I briefly mentioned the score, and I will mention it again. It is composed by Elmer Bernstein. The music captures the innocence and wonder of being a child, and accents and punctuates the film's main feel. The score emphasizes on the piano, with good use of the flute, and good use of the violin later on. Towards the end, Bernstein appears to have a fancy for harmonicas, which he utilizes well. To Kill A Mocking Bird's score is one of the best scores I've ever seen. Don't miss it.

The film has an innocent, child-like feel, but when Tom Robinson's trial starts, that innocence goes away. It returns, and strongly too, during Scout and Jem's Halloween walk back home. As I mentioned before, the music does wonders for capturing that feeling.

The movie is not extremely faithful to the book, however. It keeps the main points, but many things are changed or altered. Most of the character's roles are shrunken, and some characters have been omitted all together. Much of the humor from the book came from the narrating, but without a narrator, much of that humor is lost.

Also, the book took it's time with everything. The film is odd, in the way that it is over two hours long, yet it doesn't feel very long. But at the same time, the events go by much quicker in the movie then in the book, but the movie doesn't feel rushed. It retains that laid back feeling.

To Kill A Mocking Bird still has humor and charm, but not quite as much as the book. I am not going to lower the score of the film due to the differences between the book and film, but I do want to point it out. There are many characters who didn't get enough screen time, however, and in the book, it wasn't like that.

But I digress.

In an odd way, To Kill A Mocking Bird (the film, not the book), reminded me of the film adaption of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. I very much enjoyed the book series, but it didn't work as a movie. Too much humor is in the narrative, so a lot of humor didn't translate well. Also, the film rushed many of the events, and changed things quite a bit.

To Kill A Mocking Bird is very similar in all these respects, but the difference is this: To Kill A Mocking Bird works.

Even if To Kill A Mocking Bird doesn't give some of the characters enough screen time, this film is certainly worthy of the praise it has received. Wonderful acting, an incredible musical score, and a meaningful story are only a small segment of what makes To Kill A Mockingbird the masterpiece it is.

I hope you like fart jokes because G-Force has a lot of them. G-Force fails in almost every respect, and will only entertain children. Small children.

G-Force is about three guinea pigs who are genetically engineered to talk and be spies. But these rodents are out of the job when they're thrown into a pet shop when the government disapproves of the G-Force team. They meet another guinea pig named Hurley, and together, they escape the pet shop and attempt to save the world from killer kitchen appliances.

G-Force offers, quite literally, nothing that's original or anything that I haven't seen before on film. G-Force is always trying to be funny. The gags never stop, but I never laughed a single time. I think I smiled twice, and the second time was a smile of relief when the movie was over!

The action scenes were predictably dull. As the movie went on, it became more and more obvious that this film is strictly for toddlers. There are no "wink wink for adults" gags. The musical score rips of countless movies, many lines are laughably cheesy. Lots of contradictions in character personalities. When G-Force doesn't feel rushed, it feels slow and dull. We hear "I've got a feelin'" three times throughout the tedious duration of the film. Pacing is an issue. The acting is mostly wooden. Need I go on?

On the plus side, there are some good visuals (the CGI work is actually pretty good), and the voice work is decent, if unspectacular. Many of the good visuals are present during the "fly" scenes where one of the recruits, a fly named mooch, is shown wizzing through desserts, Venus fly traps, etc.

If you have kids, G-Force will probably entertain them. But there are lots of other better films out there that will do the same thing. I can't stress this enough: Don't watch G-Force.

There is one thing I appreciate about The Bourne movies more then anything else about them. And that is that they exist not only to make money, but to be a good movie. There are a lot of action franchises, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and Sherlock Holmes, that only exist to make money. They can be entertaining, but there's not a lot of thought put into them. The Bourne series tries to be a good movie, and they, for the most part, succeed.

Of course, the two films I've seen thus far in the trilogy have not been without flaws. Far from it really. But they are entertaining, at the bare minimum, they have a plot, and well-defined characters. The Bourne Supermacy, like it's predecessor is not perfect, but it's trying.

The Bourne Supremacy still contains the key plot elements from the first film: Jason Bourne is trying to learn more about his past, there's a plot to find and kill him, and utter confusion for both parties. The twist is that Bourne is being assumed for a crime he didn't commit (the murder of two agents). Once again, the similarities to the 90's The Fugitive are present, but I've delved into that in my previous review of the first film. In short, The Fugitive does a much better job.

The Bourne Supremacy sports believable acting, much like the first. Action movies are famous for laughable dialogue and stiff acting, but The Bourne Supermacy has neither. Matt Damon performs very well for this episode in the Bourne trilogy. The rest of the actors also perform well, but it's pointless to compliment each actor individually.

The action is considerably better in this sequel than in the original. Also, there are some very good chase scenes (there were chase scenes in the first, but they were quite dull to be honest), even though some of the automobiles seem a little too indestructible.

There's even some well-needed emotion that wasn't present the last time around.

The score, however, is less than satisfactory. The percussion is much too loud and overpowering, often annoying. Some of the instrument choices are questionable (including one instrument that we hear twice that resembles the belch of an obese couch potato), and many of the themes feel a little lost. Also, there are some jarring similarities to the superior Pirates of the Caribbean score.

Also, the girl we see sleeping with Bourne at the beginning of the film is Marie from the first film. I tell you this, because I would not have recognized her if my companion had not told me so. Her hair is blonde, she looks different (she's wearing more makeup) and she even SOUNDS different.

It doesn't make too much of a difference, though, because she dies within twenty minutes of the film's opening. And this brings up a major flaw of this movie: Bourne doesn't have a partner. In one respect, this works better because now Bourne is free to move at his own pace. However, this gives Bourne a little less personality, and it makes certain parts of the film feel a little empty.

One scene at the beginning is near a stand with tons and tons of Lays brand potato chips, all the labels facing the screen. It would be hard to believe that there wasn't some sort of pay-off here.

Also, there's a completely unnecessary scene that occurs in a club. There are some skimpily dressed women and it just feels so thrown in. This scene was literally added just for male appeal, and it disgusts me that this was thrown in just because guys like to see half-naked women. Really? It's unnecessary and tasteless. I digress.

Lastly, The Bourne Supremacy doesn't feel completely connected to the first film. That's not to say it contradicts the first, but I feel confident that someone could watch The Bourne Supermacy with no knowledge of the first film and completely understand what was going on.

The Bourne Supremacy is just as good as the original, and maybe just a bit better. There's problems to be sure; irritating score, unnecessary club scene, and the fact that the seeing the first film isn't even necessary for viewing this sequel. But the fantastic cast, great action and chase scenes, and some actual emotion more than make up for it's shortcomings.

I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book.

In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game.

The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18.

But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me.

Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year.

There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional.

The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera.

In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result.

The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen.

Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done.

The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers.

The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book.

This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction.

Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough.

Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes.

Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this.

The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them.

May the odds ever be in your favor, and happy Hunger Games!

To be honest, One Rat Short comes as something of a disappointment. While it's not bad, it falls short of being very good. One Rat Short displays some great animation, especially for it's time. And while the score is mostly generic, there are some nice bits here and there. The unfortunate thing is that there isn't much of a story, just two rats in love. And the film just started getting really good in the last minute. It makes one wish the makers of this film had brought it to the next level.

I struggle to find a true flaw in this beautiful short film. At 26 minutes run time, we experience a lovely tale of woe. A tale of horror and darkness. A trip that I usually avoid as far as cinema goes. But this is a masterpiece.

The title is a mouthful, and likewise, there's a lot of food for thought in this short film that will entertain the mind for hours.

The animation style is unique and beautiful. It appears to be both 2D and 3D at the same time, with each character being nothing more than a mere silhouette. The film is composed of black, white and grey colors. Occasionally, there is some red. I can't imagine a better looking short film.

The music is, likewise, amazing. It's mysterious, and sets a marvelous tone for this work of art.

There are relatively few characters, and only three have definitive personalities. The character development is a little fast, but this is most likely a result of the short running time.

There is little humor in this short film, if any. Only bleakness, and utter darkness. This is by no means, something for younger children. What this really is, is a masterpiece, made for those old enough to swallow it.

If you are ready for the horrific tale of Jasper Morello, wait no more; you won't be disappointed. I wasn't.

Though it's not quite the incredible film critics were making it out to be, The Bourne Identity manages to entertain the whole way through, and it's hard to imagine someone being bored during the film.

A body of a man is found floating in the ocean. This man has no idea who he is, who he was, or anything about his past. His ability to speak many different languages and provide detailed summaries about surroundings and people by just glancing at them suggests he was part of something big. Turns out, his name is Jason Bourne. And he's an assassin, and a good one. But now, he's on the run with the girl, in order to figure out more about his past, and not die.

As I watched the film, I was constantly reminded of another action film I saw recently: The Fugitive. The Fugitive was a 90's film with Harrison Ford, who plays a man named Richard Kimble, falsely charged with the murder of his beloved wife. He escapes prison, and is on the lam.

There are many reasons why The Fugitive is better than The Bourne Identity. For one, The Fugitive is more emotionally involving. We care about Dr. Kimble, and we feel his loss. The Bourne Identity offers no reason for us to care about any of the characters, so it's hard to root for either side.

Also, The Fugitive is much more frantic. Dr. Kimble's race from the cops never really stops until the very end. Jason Bourne stops every so often, as if to take a breather from the action. We don't feel the thrill with The Bourne Identity, like we did with The Fugitive (and the generic chase scenes don't help).

The film lacks smarts as well. The Fugitive was a nice little mystery alongside an action movie, but The Bourne Identity requires little thinking. We learn Jason Bourne's main role within half an hour.

But The Bourne Identity isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be. There's lots of action. Maybe even more so than The Fugitive. There's gun fights, and fist fights. There's some exciting (and somewhat unrealistic) escape scenes as well.

The film also benefits from a solid cast. Never for a minute will you question a lack of quality in the performances. Matt Damon provides a frustrated man who lost his memory. Franka Potente acts convincingly as an even more confused and worried Marie Kreutz, who wants nothing more then to get out of this mess. The rest of the cast is equally strong.

I usually don't comment about the score in action films because they're usually very run-of-the-mill. This one was a little bit better than that, but the over-powering drums keep me from praising it too much.

The main flaw with The Bourne Identity, however, was it's lack of a final fight. No cinematic duel to the death. In The Fugitive, we had a manic fight/hide-and-seek/out wit game going, that was heart-pounding. We get no such thing in The Bourne Identity, which surprised me, considering the fact that this was in fact, a movie about action.

The Bourne Identity is perfect for teenage boys. It's fun, it's got some good action scenes, and a strong cast. It entertains from start to finish. It does suffer from problems though, such as a lack of thrill, no cinematic duel, and no need to think. But in the end, good outweighs the bad, and I'm ready for the sequel.

You should know that there is expected to be two more Tintin films, and that is a good thing.

I had the pleasure of reading the many Tintin comic books when I was younger, something that I recommend doing before you see this film. After hearing there was a movie planned, I was thrilled, to say the least. Like a geek, I researched everything and anything that had to do with the film, becoming more excited with every new discovery.

Then, I finally got to see the film. Was the film going to be awful? Amazing? Mediocre? I'll put it simply: I loved it.

But to say I loved this film, is not enough. I simply must gush on about this film, that was everything I could have wanted it to be, with few complaints.

You might know that this film is based off of the following three Tintin books; "The Crab With The Golden Claws," "The Secret Of The Unicorn," and "Red Rackham's Treasure." However, a much more accurate term would be "inspired" from these books, rather than based off of. The film only borrows scenes, locations, and characters rather than the stories and plots of each. This isn't really a bad thing though, because it's nice to get to expereince a new, if familiar, adventure.

When the film opens, the audience is treated to about 2 minutes of opening "credits," done in a stylized way, portraying scenes from Tintin books, as well as showing off a fine musical theme by John Williams, whose musical talent is consistent throughout the film.

Once the actual film starts, we see Tintin in a flea market-like surrounding. This scene not only sets up the film, but does a fine job of displaying some of the greatest animation I've ever seen. It looks absolutely gorgeous, and quite life-like. The style choice is ingenious; putting cartoonish characters in a life-like setting. It's not unlike what other animation studios have done, but it's much more exaggerated in this film, and much more detailed.

The characters are portrayed faithfully. All the characters look like they do in the book, and the voice actors have been selected excellently. Tintin is exactly as I imagined him to be, the Thompson twins are hilarious, and all the other characters have been given a fine treatement as well. Even Bianca Castifore has a short scene.

I do have a few complaints regarding the character of Captian Haddock, however. In the book, he is portrayed as cranky, and usually drunk. In the film, he's portrayed as sad, stupid, occassionaly cheerful, and usually drunk. This portrayal is not a bad one, it's just not very faithful to the books. Also, Professor Calculus is omitted from the film, but he doesn't really belong in this film anyway. However, based on what I've heard the sequel is going to be about, Calculus will probably be added to the cast.

Also, for those who are curious, Snowy does not "think" as he does in the books, he's no different than any normal dog.

Me and the friends that I saw the film with, have all read the books, and it was very rewarding when watching the film. There are literally DOZENS of references, cameos, and easter eggs from the Tintin books. From characters walking in the background, to props, to posters, to names, to buildings, it doesn't end! There is actually a refrence to almost EVERY book in the series.

There are some excellent chase scenes, some exciting fight scenes, and some thrilling escape scenes. I can't remember I had so much fun at the theater. The film was also, quite hilarious, though there was some junevile humor that I didn't appreciate.

Out of a lot of praise, I do have some complaints. I have already expressed my feelings toward the change of Captian Haddock, but I do have some other things to point out as well. For one, the movie didn't have much of a plot. It felt more like the characters were trying to get from point A to point B, without much thought about what to do when they get there. Also, the film felt somewhat non-conclusive, but I feel that this was done intentionally for the sequels.

There was some cheesy dialogue (the last two lines spoken by Tintin and Haddock are ridiculously hammy), and Tintin just cannot say "Great Snakes!" without sounding forced.

I do love this film, I didn't want it to end. I am looking forward to the sequels, more so than any other film, and I have great anticipations for what Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg plan to do with the next Tintin.

Though this film doesn't beat "Hugo" for best film of the year, "The Adventures of Tintin" is a solid second, and an easy win for best animated film of the year.

Score: 8.5/10

For a film that's supposed to be based off a true story, the whole film feels as fake as the many prosthetic tales made for the star of the film; a dolphin named Winter.

The movie is about a young boy named Sawyer, who is very anti-social, and not doing very well in Summer school. One day, he finds a beached dolphin entangled in a rope and a crab trap. The boy immediately has feelings for the dolphin, and stops by the marine animals hospital everyday to check on the creature. It appears there is little hope for the dolphin to survive, do the dolphin's tale (or more specifically; lack of).

Among many problems with this film, the biggest is the movie's lack of a reason to exist. The story has obviously been greatly fabricated from it's source, the acting is passible, the attempts at humor will only make kids laugh, and there are some parts that are so unbearably cheesy, even a child may feel skeptical.

I myself, laughed only once during the film's entire duration; nearly two hours.

The film is not exciting, and it's very slow and un-rewarding. It's not unwatchable, it's just very boring.

There are countless cliches in this film, more than I'd like to count. Every soap opera idea in the book has been yanked out of the book and thrown into this movie.

I imagine some kids might enjoy this film, as long as they don't have a short attention span, but any one else will be able to see through this cheese fest.