Lars and the Real Girl - 9 stars out of 10

Lars and the Real Girl - 9 stars out of 10

“Lars and the Real Girl” is the last thing that I expected from Ryan Gosling or a title like this.  What appears to be a frivolous, absurd plot turns out to be a heartwarming story about loss and coping with that loss.  I really wish that the synopsis didn’t use the term “sex doll.”  This beautiful story has nothing to do with sex and if others are like me, I hesitated for a long time before giving this movie a chance due to that simple term.  In concept, it appears to be a creepy film but it is actually a beautiful script with an inspirational message.  I’m so happy that Academy recognized this film with a nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  It is one of the more empathetic films I’ve ever seen as it makes you contemplate how you might react to a situation like this in your family.  In the meantime, the way that the community embraces Lars’ delusion is profound and uplifting.  I was not impressed with the first few minutes of this film and wondered why Ryan Gosling accepted this role; however, it did not take much time to see the amount of emotional expression that this role afforded to Gosling.  It has become one of my favorite roles for him.  Kelli Garner is so adorable, showing mature compassion for Lars while possessing that childlike quality that enchants us.  My favorite role is Patricia Clarkson as the psychologist that must delicately unravel the hidden issues of Lars under the guise of helping to treat “Bianca.”  Clarkson is incredibly underrated in the film industry.  This film has never reached its full potential due to its misrepresentation of itself.  "Lars and the Real Girl" is not a film about some guy with a blowup doll; rather, it is a touching story of a struggling man and the community that rallies around him.

Back to the Future: Part III - 8 stars out of 10

Back to the Future: Part III - 8 stars out of 10

“Back to the Future: Part III” is a fitting conclusion to the series.  While I find it to be the weakest of the three films, I still love to watch it and applaud it for giving a fresh spin to the familiar “change the past to save your future self while trying not to disrupt the space-time continuum, all the while finding a way back home” theme.  The change of scenery is a little extreme, but I guess that it makes sense for the writers to give us an imaginative look at the past after giving us an imaginative look at the future in the second film.  The entire trilogy has that 80’s cheesiness running through it, keeping the films from becoming too dramatic and making the characters lovable, even the bad guys (well, especially the bad guys).  It isn’t too much, but the third film definitely walks the line of being too cheesy with Marty calling himself Clint Eastwood and plenty of puns that remind us that they are in the Wild West instead of 1985.  That being said, the writers do an excellent job of providing Marty with a DeLorean, using the death dates to justify him traveling back, and helping Doc Brown to find what he has always been searching for.  They also gave Alan Silvestri a great excuse to combine his awesome “Back to the Future” theme with music from the Wild West.  …And ZZ Top (see earlier comments about this film walking the line of being too cheesy).  The line is crossed during the film’s Disney-esque ending where Doc Brown practically grabs the camera and, staring directly into its lens (and the souls of every audience member), says “Here is the cheesy moral of the story and there’s no tuning me out.”  There are a few weak points but the acting is solid all the way around.  Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd are just as great as the first two films but the best performances in Part III come from Thomas F. Wilson and Mary Steenburgen.  Wilson’s slapstick portrayal of Mad Dog Tannen is inspired, blending intimidation with comedy and it is enhanced once you have seen him as Biff in Parts I and II.  Contrastingly, Steenburgen is captivating with her southern charm and feistyness when she tells off Doc.  It is unfortunate that the character requires her to go a little beyond her soft-spoken, refined disposition with the runaway carriage and the train scene; however, she has a lot of very nice moments in the film.  From start to finish, this is a solid film.  “Back to the Future: Part III” is a classic, particularly when used as the conclusion for one of the most inventive trilogies out there.

Back to the Future: Part II - 9 stars out of 10

Back to the Future: Part II - 9 stars out of 10

"Back to the Future: Part II" needed something completely innovative to keep up with its predecessor and managed to come up with a story that was MORE creative and MORE of a mindbender.  The story has paradoxes-a-plenty as it takes place in three different time periods (and an alternate universe).  Picking up where the first film left off, Doc Brown takes Marty and Jennifer into the future to save their family from ruin.  What he actually does is he opens the writers up to an entire world of new creative possibilities, creating Hill Valley in the year 2015 ( and I can't wait to see if our world looks like THIS in 2015).  It allows the writers to be creative in the opposite way that they were in Part I, examining the progress of mankind from 1955 to 1985 and looking 30 years into the future.  Now that we have just about arrived in the year 2015, it's comical to consider what our world has actually become in the "future", but that's why this film will always be a classic.  While I enjoy the flying cars, the 1980's-themed diner (which obviously is NOTHING like the 80's), and the Jaws 3D hologram advertisement, I think that the most clever creation by these writers is the hoverboard.  One of the main focuses of this film is drawing parallels between the different time periods, making a statement that people throughout history do not change - just their surroundings and resources.  The hoverboard chase is a great parallel to Marty's skateboarding in 1985 and the skateboard chase in 1955.  Unfortunately, they go a bit too far with the parallels as the film too often tries to recreate scenes and dialogue from the first film as a comedic device.  The first film was great and it's fun to throw in a few elements from the first one, but there comes a point where I am actually tired of the same dialogue or visual from the first film and want something different.  That being said, the entire 1955 sequence is genius.  To have the 1985 Marty from the first film and the 1985 Marty from the second film, Doc Brown from 1985 and Doc Brown from 1955, Old Biff from 2015 and Young Biff from 1955, all running around and trying not to bump into each other - it will just bend your mind as you keep all of them straight and see how their interactions change and then reset future events.  The alternate universe is one of my least favorite sequences from the trilogy, but I love that they give Biff such an important role in this film.  Thomas F. Wilson is really impressive playing four different versions of Biff (1955/1985/1985 alternate universe/2015) AND Griff, and I don't think that he gets enough credit for his integral part in the series (as he then plays Mad Dog in Part III, as well)!  Michael J. Fox is awesome again as Marty (and Marty Jr. and Marlene McFly...), and Christopher Lloyd reprises his greatest role ever as Doc Brown.  My biggest disappointment in this film is the replacement of Claudia Wells with Elizabeth Shue for the role of Jennifer.  I understand that Wells couldn't do it because of a family issue, but Shue is just TERRIBLE as Jennifer!  Wells was perfect as Jennifer in the first film because you can understand why Marty would want to share a sleeping bag in the back of his truck with her.  But there isn't a drop of chemistry between Fox and Shue and it really does drag the first half of the film down.  Thank goodness they dropped her from the plot in the 1985 alternate universe.  There are a few things that fall short of the first film, but many creative aspects that make this film a worthy sequel and definitely the second-best film in the series.  The insertion of this new story into the 1955 events from the first film is genius and reason enough to see the sequel, on top of great comedic acting and a unique time-traveling story.

Back to the Future - 10 stars out of 10

Back to the Future - 10 stars out of 10
1000th Review

"Back to the Future" is simply one of the greatest sci-fi comedies ever written.  With a great concept, a clever script, dynamic characters, and ironic humor that capitalizes on the 1950's setting, this is a must-see.  It would be easy to sit here and quote all of the great one-liners for all of the dedicated fans, but I'd rather dissect the film a bit farther.  I believe that one of the most interesting aspects of this film is its title.  We have heard it so many times that it has lost its intrigue, but imagine what audiences must have thought the first time that they saw the trailer and tried to comprehend the phrase "BACK to the FUTURE."  The title alone is excellent for marketing, as it perfectly describes the goal of the main character but is very curious to someone who has not seen the film.  I always remember this film for the variety of characters - the cool teenage lead, the detestable (but so comically stupid that we like him) bully, the innocent girl that isn't so innocent, the sci-fi obsessed loser, and the mad scientist.  A handful of small bit parts add another layer - Marty's hot girlfriend, the bus boy that will become mayor, Biff's gang, and the band at the dance.  Each character is so different from the rest that we just get a mosaic of personalities that play off of each other in different ways.  But truly, it all comes back to the script.  Robert Zemeckis uses multiple avenues to create his humor which keeps the entire film fresh and avoids the same joke over and over again.  Some of the jokes come from Marty being out of place in the 50's (his style of clothes that look like a life preserver, him sitting next to his father in the diner, using the Van Halen music as if he is an alien) while others come from an expectation of how a character would act in the past but having them do the opposite (Lorraine smoking, drinking, and parking).  Sometimes he creates humor doing the opposite, by drawing parallels between characters' actions in the 50's and 80's (Biff forcing George to do his homework in the 50's and work in the 80's, using nearly the same dialogue).  There is a lot of comical foreshadowing (Uncle Jailbird Joey liking to be behind the bars of his crib) and irony about the future (the actor Ronald Reagan as president and Marvin Berry calling his cousing about Johnny B. Goode).  Bob Gale and Zemeckis found so much potential with this time traveling concept, and they exploited every bit of that potential.  After casting and recasting to work around Michael J. Fox's schedule, this group created one of the best ensembles on screen.  Marty McFly is obviously Fox's natural personality, but Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover, and Thomas F. Wilson really embrace their opposing 1955 and 1985 personalities.  They definitely hit a home run with all of the 1955 bit part actors - it just seems like they put so much extra into this, probably because this would be one of the most fun time periods to act out.  Add in Christopher Lloyd's mad scientist approach to this role and this film becomes impossible to forget.  It just becomes the perfect blend of action, comedy, personality, irony, and if you don't want to buy a DeLorian after seeing this, you're crazy!  Speaking from experience, this is the type of film that you can watch two-dozen times and still laugh at every joke.

The Truman Show - 10 stars out of 10

The Truman Show - 10 stars out of 10

“The Truman Show” is one of the most interesting films that you will ever watch.  It tells the story of a man who has spent his entire life starring in a tv show without knowing it.  After a television network adopts him as a baby, he grows up in a world that is composed of actors on an elaborate set.  This is the only world that he has ever known and the film is essentially a sociological study of how a person accepts the circumstances in which he lives.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this film is its accurate prediction of America’s obsession with reality tv.  At the time of “The Truman Show’s” release in 1998, Americans had not been introduced to shows like “Big Brother” and “Survivor.”  And yet, the connection that the home audience forms with Truman is precisely what draws crowds to reality television today.  The script is fantastic, taking the perspective of the show producers and showing how they have introduced certain events into Truman’s life to keep him from exploring beyond the climate controlled world that they have created.  It accounts for the funding of the show through product placement, the crazy fans who have tried to sneak onto the set, and even the girl that loves Truman and wants to reveal the truth to him.  Most importantly, it paints Truman to be a lovable character that everybody can relate to and root for.  I’m glad to see that the script was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  The acting is also great, with Jim Carrey playing this dramatic role to perfection as he adds a few goofy quirks to make him more relatable.  Laura Linney isn’t always my favorite actress but I love to watch her play this role within a role.  Add in Ed Harris whose two incredible emotional moments earned him an Oscar nomination and Paul Giamatti is so great that his very presence makes any movie better, even in a small role.  There really isn’t anything bad to be said about “The Truman Show.”  From the interesting minimalist score by Philip Glass to the many clever ideas throughout the show’s “production,” this film will leave you wondering if you were actually watching real life unfold within a television show that existed in real life and was rebroadcasted as a movie. 

Monsters University - 6 stars out of 10

Monsters University - 6 stars out of 10

"Monsters University" just doesn't have the magic of other Pixar films.  It feels like a long DVD bonus featurette.  Whereas the Toy Story movies are all amazing in their own rite, this just makes for some nice supplemental material for the "Monsters, Inc." characters.  Stealing several plot ideas from another poor sequel, "An Extremely Goofy Movie," this film transports several beloved characters into a family-friendly collegiate setting.  The plot is nearly as original as "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," placing the monsters from several frats and sororities into a winner-take-all scare competition.  If my sarcasm has not resonated, allow me to be blunt: I enjoyed this film but the story is very unoriginal and comes off as a poor man's "Monsters, Inc.", one of the most creative films that Pixar has ever produced.  That being said, the voice acting of John Goodman, Billy Crystal, and Steve Buscemi is great as they alter their voices to sound like youthful versions of Sully, Mike, and Randall.  Just like the original, the voice casting is excellent as Helen Mirren and Alfred Molina join the cast.  The new monster characters, particularly the members of the Oozma Kappa fraternity, are hilarious and the true attraction for this film.  I particularly like Don Carlton and his middle age mustache that just doesn't seem to fit in.  The visual aspect of the film left a big impression on me.  The use of the global illumination lighting system creates a realistic vision that I have never experienced.  The backgrounds were so vivid that it literally looked like realistic animated monsters walking through our world.  Even though "Monsters University" is unoriginal and a disappointment in comparison with its predecessor, its "global illumination" has set a new standard for realism in animated films and is truly a gamechanger.

Monsters, Inc. - 9 stars out of 10

Monsters, Inc. - 9 stars out of 10

"Monsters, Inc." is a classic computer animated film that blends slapstick comedy with tear-jerking sentimentality.  In true Pixar style, the film is entirely unique because it imaginatively brings to life a world that does not exist.  The bustling city of Monstropolis explains the reason that monsters hide in the closets of children - the energy from the screams is used to power their city.  Now, we are all used to this idea because we have all seen the film and been exposed to the story for over a decade, but think about how clever that concept actually is.  The story gave the brains at Pixar the opportunity to dream up all sorts of monsters and assign a plethora of personalities.  The different monster "designs" open the film up to great comedic moments (like Randall's chameleon-like color changes and several "eye" jokes).  The main characters have more depth than your typical cartoon character.  Sully is particularly deep as he develops a father-daughter relationship with a human girl and must act as her protector.  Just like live actors, you can feel the chemistry between Sully and his tiny cycloptic friend, Mike Wazowski.  The character voices of John Goodman and Billy Crystal are perfect in these roles.  The schemey voice of Steve Buscemi is perfectly cast as the snakelike villain, Randall, and everybody loves to imitate Bob Peterson in the role of Roz.  Perhaps the funniest character interpretation is that of the abominable snowman, voiced by John Ratzenberger.  Beyond the comedy is the emotion that can largely be credited to the soundtrack by Randy Newman.  Boo's theme is versatile, playful as her relationship develops with Sully and then appearing with rhythmic augmentation to create a devastating slow song during the emotional climax of the film.  This film doesn't have "You've Got A Friend In Me" but it doesn't need it.  Whether you are a kid that enjoys the humor or an adult that can appreciate the themes of friendship and moral responsibility, every facet of "Monsters, Inc." shines together to create one of Pixar's best.

Pacific Rim (2013) - 5 stars out of 10

Pacific Rim (2013) - 5 stars out of 10

“Pacific Rim” is a sci-fi action film that uses a flimsy storyline to tie together long sequences of incredible special effects.  I understand why they had to make this film, since there’s never been a Hollywood blockbuster about gigantic robots but I wish that it had actually told an interesting story.  It’s interesting to see a new Godzilla-esque film and the destruction by these giant beasts is very enjoyable.  Guillermo del Toro’s name is synonymous with cool creatures and vividly real special effects and that is 90% of the film.  All of the action is awesome in concept and execution, like picking up a boat and using it like a baseball bat on a Godzilla-like creature.  The problems begin with the plot and the actors.  The whole “two person neural connection to operate a giant robot” plot could have been presented better.  The human element of the film is pretty dumb even though the robot element is entertaining.  I think I would’ve rather seen a “Freddy vs. Jason” parody entitled “Godzilla vs. Transformers.”  Amongst the 2013 list of summer blockbusters, “Pacific Rim” was one of the biggest but it failed to live up to its hype.  I imagine that the eighteenth sequel in the Transformers series and the new Godzilla movie will have many similarities to “Pacific Rim” but I’m glad that Guillermo del Toro saved me some time and money by combining them into one.