DVD--The Sorcerer's Apprentice

or: CAGE RAGE!

One word to sum it up: Dire.

You know what's worse than having Nicolas Cage in a movie? Having Nicolas Cage playing a thousand year old sorcerer. Especially when he has a hairstyle that resembles Brad Pitt's beard. I feel kind of sorry for the guy: he hasn't been decent in a decent movie in years; he got out-acted by a 12 year-old girl in Kick-Ass; and his latest, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, was stupidly released on the same weekend as Inception in America. Of course, it flopped. While The Cage and I don't have a very good relationship, there are still enough merits in The Sorcerer's Apprentice for him to be proud of.

Balthazar Blake (Nicolas Cage) is a master sorcerer in modern-day Manhattan trying to defend the city from his arch-nemesis, Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina). Balthazar can't do it alone, so he recruits Dave Stutler (Jay Baruchel), a seemingly average guy who demonstrates hidden potential, as his reluctant protégé. The sorcerer gives his unwilling accomplice a crash course in the art and science of magic, and together, these unlikely partners work to stop the forces of darkness. It'll take all the courage Dave can muster to survive his training, save the city and get the girl as he becomes the sorcerer's apprentice.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice is a full length adaption of a segment in the 1940 classic Disney film Fantasia. Like most remakes, this film can't quite capture the magic, so to speak, and falls into the sad territory of failed Disney live action films. As if we hadn't seen enough CGI 'enhanced' fantasy flicks over the past years. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice adopts the same old plot, with the same old formulaic script. The only thing that stands between it being totally deflated is the occasional laugh, the always funny Cage Rage and some awesome effects. That should be enough to keep the whole family entertained...even if the older ones may find themselves wearily checking the time every few minutes. It's clear that this movie doesn't have a target audience, as it's innuendoes but immature story don't mix too well together. At least there is something for everyone, and there are moments which shine bright.

Jay Baruchel, who is perhaps best known for being Kirk in the raunchy rom-com She's Out of My League, takes the lead role in this one. I wouldn't say he was the best choice for the role, but I also wouldn't go as far as saying that he was awful, like everyone else thinks. I find him really funny, and he adds the certain pizzazz that this movie needs most. Nicolas Cage is, well...Nicolas Cage. He says some things with a little too much passion ("I CAN READ MINDS!" Yeah, great dude), or HE puts emphasis ON all THE wrong WORDS. He's bearable, which is always a good thing. Alfred Molina (An Education) is, as always, spectacular as the villain. Aussie actress Teresa Palmer is cute as the love interest, and serves as the most clichéd part of the film...which somehow works. If it's a family movie you're after, then The Sorcerer's Apprentice is perfectly adequate. However, those who seek for magic in this film will surely be disappointed.



THE VERDICT: Not as fun as a family movie should be, but it isn't terrible. The CGI isn't spellbinding, nor is the storytelling, just give it a little less thought and it will be an enjoyable film.

5/10

Cinema--TRON: Legacy

or: Style waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over substance.

One word to sum it up: Lighty.

There are some things in life one may regret. You know, like, losing something important or crashing into a tree. I regret that my first 3D experience was TRON: Legacy. It could have been Avatar...it could have been bloody Yogi Bear for all I cared (okay, maybe that's pushing it too far), but no, it was Tron. Just so you know, I didn't hate the film...and I almost gave it a 6/10 rating. But thinking about it now, I'm wondering if it really deserved that kind of rating. Sure, it was pretty (I'm not sure which parts were 3D though), but it wasn't as amazing as that trailer I saw before Inception said it would be.

Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the tech-savvy 27-year-old son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), looks into his father's disappearance and finds himself pulled into the same world of fierce programs and gladiatorial games where his father has been living for 20 years. Along with Kevin's loyal confidant (Olivia Wilde), father and son embark on a life-and-death journey across a visually-stunning cyber universe that has become far more advanced and exceedingly dangerous.

Let me begin by saying this: 3D is overrated. It just seemed to enhance the picture, whereas I thought it would be more in your face. However, I think the 3D kinda improved the quality of this film. I mean, it didn't add dimensions to the story, where it was needed most, but it added dimensions to the visuals, which is what I think the filmmakers most wanted. They wanted people to be wowed by all those lights-and don't get me wrong, I was wowed-but from a critical standpoint, that wasn't enough. As long as the effects were still there, it was like the script didn't matter, and like Kevin, it seemed to get lost to the point when the audience no longer cared to find it. I think the only time I was truly jumping for the joy over this movie was when CILLIAN MURPHY APPEARED ON SCREEN. I nearly choked on my popcorn I was so excited. Alas, he was only on there for a few minutes, and it was a shame he didn't stay longer.

TRON: Legacy isn't as bad as the critics may lead you to believe. Sure, they get caught up on the clunky script, and rightfully so-you may even find yourself doing that too. I admit I was entralled by most of it, which no doubt had a lot to do with the brilliant score from Daft Punk. Jeff Bridges was, as always, great, even though both of the characters he played actually looked nothing like him (Clu was way too young; maybe they were trying to emphasize Flynn's age just a tad). Garrett Hedlund was just the average modern guy. Michael Sheen was, quite frankly, a little scary. But I found Olivia Wilde to be the real star of the show here. She, afterall, had the task of being the nerdy dreamgirl from a computer game, and she succeeded in that.

As I said earlier, I was going to rate this movie 6/10. However, now that I've given it a little more thought, this movie really doesn't add up enough for me to think that it's still 'fresh'. It's a good blockbuster, I'll give it that, but it doesn't really stretch the limits of it's premise, or it doesn't offer any really astounding moments. Which is a shame, because it could have gone so far...it just chose to be so safe.


THE VERDICT: Great visual effects and music can't detract from the really clunky script, which seems to get lost somewhere between the point of entertainment and generic over-budgeted crap.

5/10

DVD--Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

or: No, video games shouldn't be adapted into films.

One word to sum it up: Unsurprising.

Jake Gyllenhaal: Academy Award nominated actor, a critically sought after actor and also a very good looking one. So what the hell was he doing in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Was it just an excuse for him to get beefier and get some more lady admirers? Or was it so he could fight a snake (because everyone wants to do that)? Or was it because he wanted to go into unknown and what should be condemned territory: the video game adaption? Because as far as I am concerned, this Jerry Bruckheimer action/fantasy mish-mash should have really been left in the Xbox console.

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name. Learning from Tamina the true motives behind Alamut's invasion, Dastan must embark on a perilous quest to stop an evil mastermind's plot for ultimate power with a mystical weapon that can control the very fabric of time.

Ah...yeah. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was almost death-defyingly bad for me, only saved by whimsical performances from lovely leads Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton. But even then, Gyllenhaal missed the mark, as in many places his over-blown muscles became the saving grace when his strange British/American/African/Asian accent fell through. This movie was kinda like a generic daytime soap stuck in the middle of a desert a few hundred years ago. Everything said is unfortunately badly written and passes off as something out of a Michael Bay movie. In fact, Michael Bay could have directed this. It was just another summer blockbuster which had money thrown at it instead of true thought.

Remember Clash of the Titans? Well, this movie ain't too unlike that one. It's filled with some 'what-the-hell is happening now?!' moments. It has a fight sequence which involve Jake Gyllenhaal and a snake (I think at this point I was pissing myself laughing. I mean, a snake? Seriously? That kind of stuff is for those outback snake wranglers). It uses sets which are totally computer generated that they still have the glow from the computer screen setting the brightness up a notch. It has Gemma Arterton. One thing this film doesn't have in common with Clash of the Titans is the fact that it is adapted from a video game and therefore doesn't succeed. I will keep this belief until somebody can recommend me a video game adaption which is really good. And that is just about as impossible as making me like Twilight.


THE VERDICT: Gives A Nightmare on Elm Street a run for it's money in being the worst movie of 2010.

2/10

DVD--How to Train Your Dragon

or: Animated movies do it again.

One word to sum it up: Delightful.

Sometimes I wonder why animated films are so sucessful with both critics and audiences. I'm fairly certain that animated films do better than the actual live action ones. However, when I look at the evidence (i.e. every movie ever made by PIXAR), it's easy to see why these animated movies are such a hit. They can be as imaginative as they want to be, if they entertain the kids then they can entertain just about anyone, and most of these films are cleverly scripted. Even though I am a little skeptical about animated movies which aren't made by PIXAR, Dreamwork's didn't do a bad job on How to Train Your Dragon, a film which provides futher evidence that animated films are the best entertainment around at the moment.

Long ago up North on the Island of Berk, the young Viking, Hiccup (voiced by Jay Bauchel), wants to join his town's fight against the dragons that continually raid their town. However, his macho father and village leader, Stoik the Vast (Gerard Butler) , will not allow his small, clumsy, but inventive son to do so. Regardless, Hiccup ventures out into battle and downs a mysterious Night Fury dragon with his invention, but can't bring himself to kill it. Instead, Hiccup and the dragon, whom he names Toothless, begin a friendship that would open up both their worlds as the observant boy learns that his people have misjudged dragons. But even as the two each take flight in their own way, they find that they must fight the destruction which is coming for their world.

To be perfectly honest, I was disappointed with How to Train Your Dragon, but I guess that was because this movie was given heaps of hype in it's cinema release, and failed to reach my high expectations. Despite my disappointment, I still absolutely adored the movie, as I do with any other animated flick. From the beginning it is cleverly funny; it seems to use it's intelligence as it's sense of humour, and I really admired that. Because of that trait, the film will obviously be a hit with the older generations too, making this a great watch for the whole family. How to Train Your Dragon follows a very basic formula to a successful childrens film: dazzling action sequences, a great ensemble of funny characters and a message. That formula, like always, works to its advantage.

In the way of voices, How to Train Your Dragon has a lot of charming people making up the wide variety of characters. Sometimes these voices seem a little stiff (particularly Jay Baruchel's), but this barely matters when all the films flaws are covered up by it's instant entertainment and happiness. Seriously, the movie won't fail to make you laugh lots, grin from ear to ear, and keep you entertained for 90 minutes, no matter your age.

THE VERDICT: How to Train Your Dragon is a sweet and ultimately entertaining family film, which is more than capable to give those PIXAR movies a run for their money.

7/10

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Date: Still 13/07/10. Got in bed with an extremely warm electric blanket, got a block of chocolate and watched this. So glad I can now say I have watched all of The Lord of the Rings.

Soooooo, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I remember the day this premiered in New Zealand, which came to be on of the biggest days in our recent history. Epic? I think so. Now I see why they think this is one of the best movies ever made.

The former Fellowship of the Ring have come so far, and are prepared for battle against the evil Orcs of Mordor and Sauron. However, Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin), continue their journey to Mount Doom to get rid of the One Ring. But they are unaware of where Gollum (Andy Serkis) is taking them, and ultimately where their journey will bring them to.

This is definitely the best out of the series, if not one of the best movies ever made. I know I say that about a lot of movies, but this is amazing. Truly amazing. It makes most movies look tiny as it stands, grand and tall, while they sit in it's shadow. Why? It's the definition of epic in every sense. From its beginning to its end, it is visually and emotionally captivating, even if it runs for over three hours.

This comes down to a number of things; a number of things which I don't care to list because its easier if you just see it for yourself. Again, I have to comment on the amazing scenery which New Zealand provides for it. And the amazing directorial work from Peter Jackson, who really can't do much better than this. Top that with some amazing performances from its incredible cast. What you have is a very deserving Oscar winner, but even those kind of accolades don't sum up how great this movie is.

Epic in every sense, a thrilling end to a trilogy which will go down in history as one of the best things ever captured on film.

10/10

The Princess and the Frog

What can I say? Disney, you have really done it this time. So maybe I am still young enough to enjoy animated films. But honestly, I feel in love with The Princess and the Frog. I felt like a six year old obsessed with finding Prince Charming again. Which isn't really a bad thing, because now I'm back to my fourteen year old self (oh yeah, I'm looking for Prince Charming, but I have lowered my standards a bit).

Set in the Jazz-era in New Orleans, there is a young woman Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) who is working to reach her dream of owning a flash restaurant. One night her life changes when she kisses a frog who is actually Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos), and then turns into a frog herself. Together the pair work to become human again, realising that true love is right before their eyes.

It so reminded me of films like Snow White and Cinderella, which is probably the biggest reason as to why I liked it. It took me right back to my childhood so rather than being just a kids movie it was actually a nostalgic piece of cinema. Amazingly, I found myself thinking that it had elements of films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Colour Purple in it, but that's probably just because it's set in the South of America (that's just my weird way of making connections).

Let me just say this: The Princess and the Frog is a fantastic film from Disney which should hopefully earn it's place next to the more famed Disney fairy tales, because it deserves that kind of recognition. I think the critics underrate it because it was made in a year where it had to compete with such animated delights as Up, Fantastic Mr. Fox and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. It's a bit of a shame, but audiences will adore it. Adults, you don't have to use kids as an excuse to watch it.

A Disney delight, but y'all knew that, didn't you?

8/10

Alice in Wonderland

I don't know what to think about Tim Burton. While he seems to excel in making dark and moody films such as Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Ed Wood, he makes some pretty mediocre children's films. Yes, that's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a.k.a the worst movie I have EVER seen. So, Alice in Wonderland was looking pretty average for me. Let's just say, it's a major improvement on Charlie and the Chcoclate Factory, but then again it is WAY too dark to be a genuine kids movie.

Okay, so you probably know the story of Alice (Mia Wasikowska), who falls down a rabbit hole and ends up in 'Wonderland'. There she meets some interesting characaters, including the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the evil Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and various other weird and wild creatures. Alice gets caught up in this world, and must choose the path in which she wants to take.

While, at first glance, the casting seems spot on, it really isn't. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter seem forced into their roles because of their once successful working relationship with Tim Burton. Johnny Depp is by no means the star of this movie, but passes as a lesser version of Heath Ledger's the Joker. I was pretty excited when I heard that Anne Hathaway was going to play the White Queen. Sadly, despite her best intentions (and her being my favourite actress), she dismally fails to be pure and regal--whether that be because of her white hair and black makeup or just her general appearance on screen. However, Mia Wasikowska is perfect as Alice, and really carries the film from start to finish.

This version of Alice in Wonderland is not one you'd want people under 10 years of age watching. It is way too violent for it's PG rating, and will probably scare little kids to the point that they will have nightmares about the Cheshire cat. Despite this, it is quite an entertaining and admirable adaption that will hopefully be popular among fans. It is a true visual masterpiece.

It's an average movie, with some amazing special effects and scenery, but the cast lets it down.

6/10

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

I imagine that the only reason people would want to see this film is because it features Heath Ledger in his actual last performance. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009) got most of it's credibility from Ledger's time on screen, because, of course, he was magnificent. And then you have Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell completing his role. Why three? I would have just done with Johnny Depp.
Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) travels around with a troupe of performers trying to get people to watch and experience his 'magic' and other-worldly things. He invites his audience into the 'imaginarium', where their dreams can come true. Though all of this is very surreal and perfect, the audiences are getting more than they bargained for, along with the troupe of performers...including his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) who is falling for the wrong person.
In some ways, I felt I had to love this film because of Heath Ledger. In other ways, I just did not get it. It was a visual masterpiece, filled with exuberant performances (one great one from Lily Cole, who I thought was just a super-model) and amazing direction. But it fails to tap into the viewers mind, and unfortunately falls flat in places where it could be aiming for the sky. However, with that said, it is still a film which will enthrall everyone who sees it, thanks to the appearance from Heath Ledger.
6/10