Reviews

What more can be said? 20 years ago, Pixar released "Toy Story," and the rest is animation history. Computer animation has since become the dominant form of animation. Dreamworks, Warner Brothers, and Universal (and maybe some other companies I have forgotten) have created their own computer animation studios to rival Pixar. Pixar themselves would continue to push just how far animation could go, both in animation quality and in storytelling ambition.

So one may wonder, 20 years after this all got started, is the one that started it all still excellent by today's standards? The answer is an emphatic YES.

The story is fairly well known by now, but I'll repeat it anyway for those who are unfamiliar. This "Toy Story" centers around the toy cowboy Woody (wonderfully voiced by Tom Hanks). Woody is the favorite toy of the young boy Andy (John Morris), who has several other toys, including Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (the late Jim Varney), and Hamm the Piggy Bank (John Ratzenberg, whose consistent appearances in Pixar films has become a running gag of sorts - and was acknowledged as such in "Cars"). The film starts on Andy's birthday party, a time when all of his toys get nervous, because Andy might get a toy that he likes more than the others. Sure enough, he's received the latest "cool" toy, spaceman Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen, an inspired choice). This results in Woody being demoted to "second best," something he doesn't take well at all. Woody attempts to push Buzz out of the way so he can get back to being Andy's favorite toy, but through a series of mistakes (and misadventures), he winds up making both he and Buzz separated from their owner Andy. Worse, they end up in the possession of their neighbor, Sid (Erik von Detten), who prefers to blow up his toys instead of play with them. Now Woody and Buzz have to make peace and work together if they are to return to Andy (oh, and did I mention that Andy is moving away soon?).

The premise is simple enough, but it's in the execution where things get very inspired. Take, for example, how the toys attempt to learn what presents Andy is receiving. They send several Army Men Toy Soldiers down for a "Code Red" mission, and how these soldiers pull this off always puts a smile on my face. I still remember being inspired by watching the soldiers move that radio into that small leafy plant on the bottom floor (I was seven when I first saw this). I was so inspired, in fact, that a year later, I was "teaching" my toys how to hide in the Christmas tree during Christmas. Director John Lasseter and the Pixar team have deeply considered how a world of toys would work. How would a toy feel about getting relegated to "second best" when a new toy comes around? And it's pretty fun to see how the toys have to consistently make sure the "human world" never knows about their awareness.

And the strength of this script goes beyond its consideration of a world of toys. Its tight and to the point. There are no wasted moments in the film's (short) 81-minute runtime. Pixar is not satisfied with simply showing what computer animation can do. They are interested in guiding along through a story that provides laughs, thrills, an occasional scare, and something valuable to learn at the end.

Obviously, the quality of computer animation has improved greatly since this film first came out (watch how they animate a dog here, and compare it to how Pixar would animate Sullivan's fur in "Monster's Inc.", for example). But let's remember, at the time, this was considered to be massively advanced animation. Many adult critics wondered if kids would realize just how big of a breakthrough this was in the history of animation, but I can reassure them, I may have been only 7 years old, but even I realized an entirely computer animated film was a very big deal indeed! Looking back now, I do think we should consider some of the things the animators did in this film that further emphasized what computer animation should be going for. Gene Siskel pointed out that you could see a reflection off of Buzz's helmet (and even stated, as a compliment, "They didn't have to do that!"). The toys, the settings, everything was beautifully rendered and still looks good today. Even if one just reduced this picture to its visual qualities (inadvisable), they would still come out quite satisfied.

Today officially marks the 20 year anniversary of when I saw this film (December 22nd, 1995), and it's high time I got to writing a review of it. "Toy Story" absolutely changed movies, and that is not a hyperbole. It's popularity made others realize the financial potential in computer animation. It's quality made everyone realize just what computer animation could (and should) pull off, both in visuals and storytelling. Pixar themselves would start a very long winning streak of highly acclaimed pictures, with many seemingly getting even more glowing reviews then the picture before it (heck we've gotten two great "Toy Story" sequels to boot). That this film still holds up even though many envelope pushing animated pictures have been released since is impressive indeed.

20 years later, "Toy Story" still rocks!

Spanning from his days as a student in South Africa to his assassination in India, "Gandhi" recounts several events of the man's life. In South Africa, Gandhi (played terrifically by Ben Kingsley) fights against discrimination laws against Indians, but instructs his followers to fight non-violently. This will set a precedent for his return to India, where he travels the country, observes the state of the people, and takes on the discriminatory British laws one by one. Time and time again, the British authorities try to bring him down, but Gandhi continually growing support from his people make it harder to suppress his demands. However, when India's independence is increasingly becoming a reality, so is the fact that India could partition into two nations because of religious differences, something Gandhi fiercely opposes and has trouble trying to control.

Of all the compliments and accolades that have gone to this movie, the most seem to be directed at Ben Kingsley, and for good reason. He is incredibly convincing as Gandhi, showing the great gravitas the man could hold when he was leading demonstrations of thousands. He also shows how committed Gandhi was to his views. Take, for example, the moment when a his friend Walker (Martin Sheen) comments to him, "You're an ambitious man," and Gandhi replies, "I hope not." His response, though not forceful, still hits an odd nerve, as you wonder how someone who wants equality for his people in such a segregated state could not consider himself "ambitious." And yet, that response makes the rest of his actions in the movie make that much more sense. Though he is deeply committed to equality (and later, independence), he also believes it's an inherent right, not something you're born without. It's kind of surprising that Kingsley's track record after this film has been rather erratic, although he did have good turns in "Schindler's List" and "Shutter Island."

Director Richard Attenborough wastes as few details as possible about Gandhi's life (there's even a title card early in the picture that acknowledges that not all of his life could be compressed into one movie). This, for the most part, is a good choice, since you're allowed to gradually see and understand how Gandhi got India to break away from Great Britain, and, eventually, struggled to keep it one nation. For the first 140 minutes or so, the film is pretty well paced, although it's reverential attitude towards Gandhi did make me wonder if there was something more complex behind his character. The last 40 minutes, while they make the movie drag, do at least challenge Gandhi's notions, as he is forced to confront the fact that his intelligent speeches and periods of long fasting will not be enough to alleviate a long religious conflict between Muslims and Hindus (which lead to the creation of Pakistan). Notice how, when Gandhi claims to be a man of all faiths, a Hindu, not a Muslim, later assassinated him.

Though I think some trimming of the time could have helped, this is nonetheless a good looking and well acted epic and also intelligently addresses some issues that still affect us today. Do tyrants always fall? Or are the people who stand against them bound to fall as well? For me, that seemed to be the question the film posed at the end.

I will give Chris Columbus this much: he succeeded in making a 2.5 hour film feel 30 minutes long. Never while watching "The Chamber of Secrets" did I feel bored or impatient, as one scene after another fired away with the latest revelation of the "Harry Potter" universe. Yet as the picture went on it didn't feel like it was adding up to a whole lot. For all of the events and discoveries that occur within the film, the direction feels less inspired, the script feels less assured, and for all of the horrors that are occurring within the school, there doesn't always seem to be a whole lot of jeopardy. That takes away from what could have been a massively entertaining epic.

This film picks up right where #1 left off. Harry is having a miserable time with the Dursleys, and to make matters even more confusing for him, he receives a strange visit from a house-elf named Dobby (well voiced by Toby Jones) that he mustn't attend Hogwarts because if he does, his life will be in danger. Harry manages to escape and get to school anyway (although very unconventionally), but as soon as he arrives, a series of strange events begin to occur immediately. When some students begin getting attacked by an unknown monster, Harry quickly turns into a prime suspect, and he, Ron, and Hermione work relentlessly to track down the culprit.

I mentioned Toby Jones earlier, and that brings me to some great casting choices this film has. First off, Jones brings an honest, well-intentioned, earnestness to Dobby, which is a very good thing, considering that Dobby could have been easily portrayed as annoying. Also inspired (and quite funny) is Kenneth Branagh as the self-centered and incompetent Defense against the Dark Arts Teacher, Gilderoy Lockhart. Then you've also got Jason Issacs as the icy Lucius Malfoy (he holds back no contempt against Harry Potter and Arthur Weasley), Julie Walters and Mark Williams as the endearing Mrs. and Mr. Weasley, and Christian Coulson as the power hungry Tom Riddle. And don't forget the good retentions from the first film, including Tom Felton still relishing his role as the snarky Draco Malfoy and Robbie Coltrane holding strong as the semi-father figure Rubeus Hagrid.

Although those performances shine, some others don't. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, nor Emma Watson are a whole lot better here than they were in film #1. Part of that problem is because the script by Steven Kloves doesn't feel as sharp. He doesn't seem to build up to the sense of jeopardy the school is in as well as he did previously. Okay, he didn't do it terrifically then either, but at least it was better. Too many scene transitions feel abrupt as well. And the revelation on who opened the Chamber of Secrets doesn't pack nearly the punch that it should because the person at fault is underdeveloped.

Adding to that, Chris Columbus's direction feels less inspired. In the first film, he had an honest interest in the world of "Harry Potter," and was keen to reveal all of its wonders. Here, he seems stuck on that mode, when the story calls for more "sinister" direction. Hogwarts still feels like a warm, confiding place to be (although the picture tone is a little yellower and drier than in the previous film), and the sense that something awful is trying to emerge from underneath doesn't get through.

I also recall saying in my previous review that had it not been for John Williams' film score, it would have been a 7, not an 8. Well, in this film, there felt like there was too little of his wonderful music. There's nothing wrong with silent scenes, per say, but when the script and direction aren't always good and you don't have great music to listen to anyway, something feels lacking.

Is anything better? Yes. The special effects are more polished this time around. The best example comes during the Quidditch game. The movements by the students on their brooms feel far more realistic this time, or at least, as realistic as you could possibly make Quidditch. Before, they felt jerky and computer animated. Now, they feel gradual and human calculated. You get a feel for the turn of direction, the maneuvering through the underground barristers, and the resistance of air at any given point. Also well realized are Dobby the house elf (not quite Gollum-realistic but still well-integrated into the scene), the Weasleys' flying car, and the monster in the film's final battle. These were improved despite a small slashing to the budget.

Do I recommend "The Chamber of Secrets"? For the most part, yes. There's too much talent around for the film to go wrong, and some select scenes (the Quidditch match and the climax, for example) work terrifically well. But overall, this simply does not feel as fresh as "The Sorcerer's Stone," or as good. Let's hope that, by the time part 2 of "The Deathly Hallows" rolls around, this will remain the weakest "Harry Potter" film.

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" marked the first time I ever counted down the days to a film's release. I had read the first four books, loved every single one of them, and I was eagerly anticipating seeing one of my favorite world's come to life on the big screen. I was not disappointed. It remains, to date, one of the best cinema going experiences of my life.

Nine years later, I decided to rewatch it, unsure if, after all these years and subsequent installment, my enjoyment would be diluted. Thankfully, that was not the case. While "The Sorcerer's Stone" may not have been the magical experience it was when I first saw it, it was nonetheless entertaining, sometimes inspired, usually engaging, and fast moving.

One of the things that struck me about this film was the production design. Stuart Craig, who remained production designer throughout the series, is masterful in bringing the wonderful world of "Harry Potter" to life. From the bustling streets of Diagon Alley, to the autumn-colored, medieval halls of Hogwarts, Craig terrifically brings this alternate world to life.

Most of the adult actors are quite good. Robbie Coltrane gives arguably the best performance as Hagrid, the deeply-caring gamekeeper who treats Harry almost like a surrogate son. Even when he's doing wrong, like hatching dragon eggs, you still root and sympathize for him. Richard Harris is also wonderful as the (mostly) soft-spoken and strong-hearted Albus Dumbledore. It is saddening that he only got to play the role in two movies and we never got the chance to see him evolve his character to the finale. You also have Fiona Shaw and Richard Griffiths are quite funny in their over-the-top performances as the Dursleys. Alan Rickman oozes contempt as Severus Snape, the lone teacher who can't stand Harry. And Dame Maggie Smith lets everyone know who's in charge as the stern Professor McGonagall.

The cast of children are sometimes hit-and-miss, but overall there are more hits. Daniel Radcliffe usually makes a compelling lead as Harry Potter, although there are a couple of points where he seems to be just making sure he gets out his lines. Likewise, Rupert Grint (as best mate Ron Weasley) has a little trouble playing off other characters, although his comic timing is usually good. Emma Watson is not afraid to show off as the bossy, sometimes pretentious, but ultimately clever and well-intended Hermione Granger. She tends to get the best bits of comedy in the film; I laughed the hardest when, after Harry breaks a rule that could lead to his expulsion, Watson mutters with pure pretentious contempt, "What- an- idiot." One other child actor who makes a good, evil impression is Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. I need not mention how much of a shock it was seeing all of these actors so young after watching them in "The Half-Blood Prince"!

Steven Kloves wrote the script, and while I wish he had let some scenes last longer, he makes up for that by trying to keep focus on the characters in Hogwarts and inserting a good amount of humor into the film. Kloves, probably trying to ensure he could please as many book readers as possible, sticks close to the original text, and that leads to both good and not-so-good traits of the film. While there are plenty of random pleasures, the direction of the story doesn't become very clear until halfway through.

Chris Columbus would not have been my first choice for director but he holds his own here. He clearly takes a great interest into the sheer wonder of the world of magic, and he strikes many tones correctly in the picture, from comic (anything with the Dursleys), to horrific (in the Forbidden Forest), and to emotive (the first encounter with the Mirror of Erised, one of the rare scenes that feels as long as it should). Still, some scenes leave more of a punch to be desired. When poor Neville Longbottom accidentally goes veering into walls on a broomstick, Columbus doesn't perfectly capture how absurd it it that Madam Hooch's reaction is for him to somehow come back down on his own will. No wonder J.K. Rowling had Terry Gilliam as one of her first choices for director.

Two other quibbles significantly bring down the picture. The first is a plot inconsistency. "Voldemort" is apparently a name that is so feared, people say "You-Know-Who" instead. However, these same character tend to quickly proceed to say "Voldemort" anyway. I'm kind of surprised Columbus, Kloves, and editor Richard Francis Bruce somehow missed this. Second, the special effects, while usually effective, sometimes get too herky-jerky, particularly during the Quidditch game.

Still, those are minor to what I consider to be the greatest strength of "The Sorcerer's Stone"... THE SCORE! John Williams perfectly captures all of the appropriate feelings of the film, molding the music into becoming integral to the storytelling itself. No doubt Williams would have won the Oscar had it not been for Howard Shore's also brilliant score to the first "Lord of the Rings" film. Frequently while watching this film, I found myself simply listening to the picture, allowing John's score to carry me through the scene. I strongly believe that had his score not been in this film, my score would be a 7 and not an 8.

So there you have it. While "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is probably not the best installment in the Harry Potter series, it is nonetheless effective. There's good acting, great production design, fantastic visuals, funny comedy, a great deal of wonder, and all sorts of other things that make this an entertaining and fast-moving film. The sense of joy I got back in 2001 isn't there anymore, but there's still pleasure, and that's good enough.

Just to give you some perspective, I was in a college marching band myself. It was in the Midwest though, so we were more "traditional" than what these guys pull off in "Drumline." As it is, my only experience watching a band like this came last year when I saw the Delaware State Marching Band perform.

Anyway, onto the movie, which I mostly liked. As many reviewers have pointed out, it features an old fashioned story. Basically, you have a high school hotshot (Nick Cannon) who, while a talented drummer, is a poor team player. When he's recruited to the prestigious Atlanta A & T Band, he believes it's his chance to show his stuff with a superior school. But his cocky nature conflicts with both the values of his section leader and his band teacher, and he will have to learn that it takes more than just talent to be a part of his school's drumline.

It's an old-hat Hollywood story, but I will give it credit for getting one thing right about being in a college marching band. You HAVE to be a team player. You need to follow instructions and play your correct part. So I will give the movie credit for showing that.

Another thing the movie doesn't skimp on is that college marching band is very tough. While our band did not have to run up and down stairs with our instruments held high or do tons of push-ups, we did have to practice for almost 12 hours a day every day in the August heat, and then practice every day for at least 90 minutes from the September heat to the November snows. You have to treat marching band like it's a living, and this film does a good job showing that too.

The acting is fine on almost all counts. I especially enjoyed Orlando Jones as the band teacher; he reminded me of a couple of band teachers I've had in the past. And the marching band performances are zippy, filled with energy, and fun to watch. I guess my only reservation is that I can't think of many people I knew in marching band who had experiences that mirrored Nick's story, so it was hard for me to completely relate to this movie. Then again, marching band is something I take very personally, so it would have been hard for a marching band story to satisfy me anyway.

Basically, this is good entertainment, with a couple of good examples of what it's like to be in a college marching band thrown in. Don't be fooled by the 5.2 rating; I have no idea why the rating is so low for this movie. It should be a 6-6.5 at minimum. Considering how few movies there are that even reference marching bands, it's a good thing this movie can at least do some justice for them.

The moment Billy Bob Thornton spoke, I had to stop and think. This can't be him, I thought. Not the guy from "Friday Night Lights." Not this person, who barely wears an emotion and can't look at people in the eyes. And yet here he was, as Karl Childers, in what would become one of the most perfect performances I have seen.

What Thornton does with the character of Karl Childers is remarkable. The perfect amount of subtlety he brings to his character. The consistency of his performance. At one point, when his adoptive family gets into a fight with an abusive boyfriend, he just sits on the couch and doesn't move a muscle. How many actors can just sit there and not be distracted like that? I had heard good things about this movie, but I was not entirely aware of how great Thornton's performance was. Now that I've seen it, I'm floored. Just to cover all bases here, I was also impressed by the long shots, the great work by the supporting cast, and the strength of the screenplay. "Sling Blade" is an excellent character study of how a good-hearted but unfortunately unstable man tries to live in the "big world." And then you have Billy Bob Thornton at the center of it all.

Anyone who's interested in terrific performances or quietly effective storytelling should see this movie now. You won't regret it.

Ah, Jerry Bruckheimer. The ultimate bigwig in big-budget, over-the-top, special effects laden action and entertainment. Sometimes, his films will fully deliver the goods ("Black Hawk Down," "Pirates of the Caribbean"). Sometimes, they're flat out messy ("Armageddon"). Sometimes, they're flat out boring ("National Treasure"). This film sometimes delivers, and almost does. But then it cheats at the end, and it left me feeling very unsatisfied, like the entire picture had been a waste of time.

Set in ancient times (or whatever those title cards said), "Prince of Persia" follows Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), an adopted prince who, along with his two brothers, his adoptive father, and his Uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), is first found attacking the holy city of Alamut. They believe the city is committing treason. The raid is successful, but evidence of treason is not found. Dastan does, however, encounter the much heralded Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton). During a victory celebration, the King of Persia announces that he will make Dastan king and make Tamina his wife. But then he suddenly dies, and Dastan is framed for the murder. Now he must flee with Tamina, and together, they must find out who is really behind this conspiracy.

Gyllenhaal is pretty good in the lead as Dastan, not his best performance, but okay nonetheless. Then again, considering his caliber, it would be very hard to find Jake in a bad performance. Likewise, Gemma Arterton is okay as the feisty Princess Tamina, and she and Gyllenhaal do enjoy a little chemistry together, but not very much. Ben Kingsley doesn't impress too much as the "evil uncle" Nizam. The best performance, ironically, comes from a role that doesn't contribute a whole lot to the plot. It's from Alfred Molina as the (ready for this?) taxes-hating, ostrich-racing, Sheik Amar. Molina seems to be the most aware of "Prince of Persia's" B-movie roots, and he plays up his role appropriately. It's hilarious to watch him complain about taxes and over-like his ostriches, and at one point, Molina even makes a remark that, for all I knew, mocked the movie he was in. I not only wished he was in the movie more (as it is, he was in for roughly ten minutes), but I wished the other actors played it up to his level.

Production values and special effects are pretty good here; the movie cost a reported $200 to make. As with many other summer movies, action scenes are "Prince of Persia's" bread and butter. Unfortunately, they are frequently hyper-edited and zoomed in too close, thus making them rather average. Gyllenhaal seems to pull of some impressive stunts by running off of rooftops, but I couldn't entirely tell. The film was directed by Mike Newell, and just like with the fourth "Harry Potter" film, action scenes are not his strongpoint. He does much better with character interaction; unfortunately, he doesn't have a whole lot of that to work with here.

As for the plot, well, it's not too strong. After Dastan is forced to flee, the plot has a tendency to go in circles as we see the Dagger with the Sands of Time (that's the chief object of desire here) trade numerous hands, Dastan run around in city after city, and endless numbers of bad guys complicate our hero's journey. But I had fun with it anyway, despite its flaws. It wanted to be a fun B-movie, and I started to go with the flow. The actors were likable, and it was through them that I got most of my entertainment value.

But then came the cheat. I won't spoil it, but let's just say that the twist at the end made me feel like the entire movie had been a waste of time. Admitted, had the movie not cheated, my recommendation for "Prince of Persia" would have been marginal, but it would have been a recommendation nonetheless. As it is, even for pure entertainment reasons, I cannot recommend this movie.

Set in the middle of the 21st century, "Minority Report" follows John Anderton (Tom Cruise), a skilled Pre-Crime cop who is very efficient in preventing murders from happened. He lives in Washington D.C., where there hasn't been a murder in six years thanks to the installment of Pre-Crime. This law enforcement group uses visions from three future-tellers (Precogs) to determine when and where a murder will happen. But when the Precogs predict that John Anderton is planning a murder, he is forced to flee and somehow prove his innocence.

Obviously, one of the big issues here is if it is right to arrest someone from committing a crime you know will happen before the fact. Both sides of the issue are given fair treatment here; we see both the great efficiency of the Pre-Crime unit as well as the consequences it bodes for, as Steven Spielberg put it, "the .002%" Such a premise holds a goldmine of material, and Spielberg and his collaborators do a good job mining it for substance. The acting is very good as well. Tom Cruise is solid as the lead, but Samantha Morton steals the show as a Precog who starts developing a connection with Anderton. Max Von Sydow and Colin firth also make good impressions in their supporting roles.

The city of Washington D.C. is richly realized, with its magnetic highways, personalized advertisements, and no-glasses-needed 3-D video files. The cinematography presents a world that is obviously very advanced, but emotionally detached. Overall, this is a very technically accomplished picture.

As much as the creators go into the issues at hand, I ironically wished they had gone deeper. How, for example, was the U.S. Constitution changed to allow for Pre-Crime to exist? I also wished the grand motive for the existence of Pre-Crime by its creator had been better clarified; as it was, it seemed a little sketchy.

Still, this remains a solid achievement. "Minority Report" is both thrilling and smart, and is worth your time especially if you are into good works of science fiction or Steven Spielberg's repertoire.

Let's get this out of the way: if you've seen the 1984 version, you've seen most of the 2010 version. Not only does this remake follow the previous film scene by scene in multiple cases, it occasionally follows it shot by shot (the climax is a good example). So it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that this remake contains many of the same strengths and weaknesses of the 1984 version.

What are the downsides? Well, first, the bullies remain underdeveloped. True, their motive in the 1984 version for bullying Daniel was petty (he went out with one of the members' ex-girlfriend), but you at least knew why. Here, it is never explained; we are left to simply assume it is because he is a new kid. The adherence to the original also caused me to get impatient occasionally, since I knew what event would happen next, whether I liked it or not. A couple of characters and events get introduced, but are forgotten by film's end. And the fight scenes aren't as discernible as in the 1984 version (although, thankfully, I could still make out what was going on).

Still, despite the weaknesses, this film does have more merits. For once, this summer, we are given a protagonist with a good, strong, character arc. The screenplay does the character of Dre Parker a great favor by making him a well-rounded character and making his journey an emotionally compelling one. Jaden Smith is surprisingly solid; he has a good on-screen presence and gives a very convincing performance. His relationships with Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) and Meiying (Wenwen Han) are also handled with great care. Both Chan and Han are convincing in their roles.

Not only does the film explore the world of kung fu, but also the world of Taoism. It's never mentioned, but Mr. Han's teaching of "inner energy" and fighting only when it is necessary to defend are very much in line with Taoist principles (Taoism is one of the "three teachings" of China). While you're liking of the film may greatly depend on whether you've seen the 1984 version or not, it can at least be said that Jaden Smith is very good in this film and that his journey is actually worth something to the audience. Considering how many summer films so far have forgotten to get us emotionally involved with the protagonist(s), it is a little relieving to see the remake of "The Karate Kid" care for its main character's journey and have us be emotionally involved too.

As weird as I feel writing this, I laughed while watching this movie. A lot. The film has an outrageous plot, plenty of crazy gags, and far more crude humor than what I'm usually comfortable with. But I went with it anyway.

How so, you may ask? Well, that's something I've been wrestling with myself. But I've come up with at least two things that I think made this comedy a cut above (along with the numerous jokes, of course). First, I liked how character driven this was. The characters John Cusack, Clark Duke, Craig Robinson, and Rob Corddry play aren't at the mercy of bad punchlines or thinly developed. Not only are they allowed to drive the humor and the plot (or lack, thereof), they fully embody their characters like real people. You really get a sense for how their lives have gone downhill, how they wish for those "good ol' days," and why they feel like they're at the mercy of bad fate. Notice also how they are not dumb. It may take them a little while to figure out they're in 1986, but once they do, they quickly come up with possible theories on what their actions will mean for the future and what they want to do for each other (and themselves) before the night is over.

Second, I liked the film's message. With a plot as crazed out as this one, it probably makes sense that theme of this movie is to "embrace the anarchy" of life. And it's not a half-assed message either. I won't give away how the theme plays out, but I will say that I was very satisfied with the payoff.

As many reviewers have pointed out before me, this film is filled with crude humor and foul language. You've already probably determined whether this is for you or not. But if you're willing to "embrace the anarchy" of this film, dip in. It's funny, the cast is great, and the theme is well executed.

I was very excited when I heard that Russel Crowe and Ridley Scott were teaming up for this film. Seeing as they had done so well together in "Gladiator" and "American Gangster," I thought for sure they'd strike gold again here. I even avoided all early reviews before watching this. Unfortunately, after watching "Robin Hood," I was a little less satisfied. Apparently, many others were too.

It should be emphasized that this is an origin story; not the tale of Robin Hood the outlaw but rather how he came to be a respected soldier and leader before being outcast as an outlaw. That's fine, if you do it right. Unfortunately, the plot seems heavily cluttered at the beginning with too much exposition. Time and time again, I kept wondering what point would be a good beginning point. I think it was when Robin went to Nottingham that I felt the film was finally beginning. Unfortunately, that was forty minutes (or so) into the picture.

Technically, this is a quite accomplished film. The production design is very convincing, and the cinematography gives an appropriate rustic look to the picture. Some of the performances work too. Mark Strong is starting to rack up the villains, and he gives us another memorable one in Sir Godfrey. Cate Blanchett is solid as always, playing the self sufficient Maid Marion. And the veteran Max Von Sydow is sometimes moving as her father. Crowe's alright as Robin Hood, but his English accent seems to go in and out and he's not the most memorable among the cast.

Unfortunately, the weakness is within the plot. Sometimes, I was wondering to myself if there was a good 90-100 minute movie in this 140 minute feature. There's just too much clutter early on; lots of people, places, battles, and movements to remember, but a lot of it feels irrelevant by the end of the picture. Had the film focused itself on a select group of characters and events, we may have had an origin tale to remember (considering the talent involved).

Okay, maybe I should check myself on that last statement. Visually, the film is quite impressive. The many different elements of Wonderland are wonderfully constructed, both with the CGI and the production design. Burton's always had a knack for creating visually interesting and imaginative movies, and you get that again here.

The cast mostly acquits themselves. We've come to expect Johnny Depp to play weird/out there roles, so his performance as the Mad Hatter is enjoyably nutty. And Helena Bonham Carter (another Burton regular) is quite good shifting from being villainous to darkly comical as the Red Queen.

What never really takes flight, however, is the story. While I was watching the film, I couldn't help but feel that Disney was telling Tim Burton what to do the whole time. When he's at his best ("Ed Wood," "Big Fish," "Sweeney Todd"), he can mix a bizarre and visually unique world with a close to home emotional journey with well-developed characters. Here, he has the world, but the story seems to be checking the plot points instead of taking on a journey of its own. Too often, Alice circles around her belief that "it's just a dream" while we, the audience, know otherwise. And speaking of Alice, while actress Mia Wasikowska sometimes shows the plucky courage necessary for the role, there are also moments where she is too stiff in her body language or underplays the scene that surrounds her.

Overall, I can only marginally recommend "Alice in Wonderland." The sets and CGI are top-notch, and some of the actors do well with their roles. But the story needs more life breathed into it and it needs to feel more organic rather than "been here, done that."