Reviews

I don't think I was all that excited, originally, to see this film. I've only skimmed the series "Heroic Misadventures" (on which this film is loosely based) and therefore had no real attachment to this. But I'm a simple soul who likes animated movies, and the animation sure did look pretty.

I was stunned. I can't remember the last time I was this touched by an animated movie. Heck, I don't think I've been this touched by many movies of the "any" category. This is a story that touches on so many emotions during the course of its fairly simple plot--always a magic combination.

Hiccup is the son of a powerful Viking chief of a little Viking village, but he's scrawny, sarcastic, and suited more for mechanical engineering than plundering and dragon-killing. Everyone makes fun of him, and his father is torn between shame of his son's failings and a powerful need to protect him from danger. Hiccup wants desperately to fit in, and uses one of his creations to shoot down a dragon.

Which he then is unable to kill. Instead, he tames the dragon, fits his with a prosthetic tail fin (one having been ripped off in the original capture) and secretly helps the dragon "Toothless" fly again.

It's touching, often hilarious, and simply powerful. This is simply a great story that is well-told and well-done with a mix of more static, silly characters and major characters with more depth. The emotions are incredible, and a rather bitter twist at the end completes the journey. The animation is beautiful and the score gorgeous.

I can't wait to see this gem again.

Here's the deal. I'm an elementary teacher. This is a movie based on a popular children's book. Of course I have to see it. I hope everyone appreciates that. So I dragged along a date to pick up some 3D glasses in a theatre full of bawling children... who quickly settled down once the story line got going.

This is quality that has not been seen since "The Nightmare Before Christmas". "Coraline" is an absolutely spell-binding story with a solid foundation in childhood innocence combined with the eerie and bizarre. I loved the book, and this for the most part stayed very true to the book--most differences were more of expansions of the story than glaring changes. Coraline and her family move into an apartment building full of strange characters. Coraline is sad and bored and her parents just don't seem to have time for her. The only other kid around is weird. So when she stumbles upon a passage way to an alternate and magical world controlled by her Other Mother, Coraline is understandibly thrilled. And then the horror begins...

The animation (or rather, stop-motion) is incredible, and I don't think the movie would have been the same with any other medium. I loved the cast. The soundtrack is properly creepy. This new 3D program is far from gimicky. But still, what truly makes this movie is the haunting story and that is probably what will hopefully make it memorable.

I don't know if I would be bringing the babies into this film, but I did read the novel to my first graders last year and they enjoyed it. Frankly, I would prefer to think of this as a family movie rather than a "kiddie film" as I consider the novel a children's novel. It's one of those stories that will appeal to all ages.

This is hard for me. "Mall Cop" is one of those movies I wanted so much to like! I find Kevin James hilarious in just about everything he does, and frankly, this looked like a pretty decent setup for a "dumb comedy" (I love dumb comedies, so that's not an insult in the least.) However, though this certainly had its funny moments, as a whole it really did not fit together as I found myself wondering if I were watching a Home Alone-reminiscent comedy about an under-appreciated maul guard protecting his mall in humorous ways or something serious. Not a good thing to be wondering.

It began well. It wanted to be good. However, there was a little too much exposition before the mall was actually taken over by baddies. All right, now the rest is funny stuff. But it seemed that most of the funny stuff was what was in the trailer, leaving us with awkward hit-and-miss humor and clumsy action.

And then they started threatening people. And then Paul Blart's daughter got involved. And I started thinking "This is pretty scary for a PG comedy". Seriously, folks, these people were hostages. There was a little girl. Discussing shooting them dead isn't very funny.

It was well-intentioned, this movie was. Don't get me wrong. But the ingredients were, frankly, a mess.

I'll stick with "King of Queens" reruns. It's funny and they don't threaten to kill people on it.

It's rather refreshing to see Adam Sandler in a movie that is not devoted to being crude and it seems he can handle that well enough. Here, he plays a more down-to-earth character, a hotel handyman named Skeeter who helps babysit his niece and nephew while his sister goes out of state to look for work (she is the principal of an elementary school tragically being shut down--this figures into the plot). He entertains the kids were various bedtime stories inspired by his own problems and the young ones gleefully volunteer details and plot lines as well. Nice enough bonding project, until Skeeter notices incidences oddly reminiscent of details in the stories. They are done realistically enough--for example, a gum-ball rain shower appears in the form of a candy-carrying truck accident on an overpass above Skeeter. Still, the bedtime stories are more or less coming true.

It's a fun and charming idea and story, exuding a definite sweetness with a smattering of "gross" stuff to keep the small viewers giggling (I thought it was all in good, juvenile taste, never went overboard). The concept was more original than the story itself, but was still well-balanced. I think my only real complaint was that the plot was not the most organized thing in the world. It did not wander, per say, but while the stories-to-life thing is a nice plot device, it should not be solely relied upon. I found myself several times asking myself what just happened and why. Events and relationships popped out of nowhere without rhyme or reason.

Perhaps a little tightening of the plot and more attention upon characters would not have hurt this movie.

Still, "Bedtime Stories" is sweet, imaginative, and does not ask much more than to be liked. And likable it certainly is.

I did not have the pleasure of seeing this movie until the DVD release and now I'm sad I never got to see it on the big screen. Several other Seussian classics have been transformed into full-length features with various measures of quality--I think this is without a doubt the best. Perhaps it's because it's animated (and those Seuss cartoons just need to continue to be animated) perhaps it's because they did not make it weirdly perverse in desperation to appeal to adults. Perhaps they had just the right touch.

The story of a steadfast elephant who communicates with a tiny being on a speck of dust is lengthened into an albeit much more developed plot with character development (and extra characters) without losing the message--indeed, they are careful to make sure it is not only recited in the movie but proved.

It's a celebrity cast, but a good celebrity cast who lend their various personalities to their characters in a way that truly works. The animation isn't anything out-of-this-world, but I have no complaints against it whatsoever. It works and the movie is lovely.

"Horton" is hilarious, yet with plenty of heart and moral. I like to think Dr. Seuss would be proud.

I have seen this movie twice, once in theatres and now on DVD. I'm happy to say that I still find it very enjoyable, a quirky blend of supernatural and humor that happily finds its groove. I realize that the idea of a person communicating with the dearly departed is hardly original in Hollywood--however, the majority of the time it works great and this is no exception. The setup here is an antisocial dentist who walk the thin line of keeping the obnoxious population off his back without thoroughly hurting them. It's difficult and he often fails. A near-death experience in an operating room leave him with veil opened and every annoying ghost in New York City seeking him for help. It's funny, it truly is, and finds plenty of fairly original details to keep it from being just another ghost story. The cast is marvelous, the characters clever, and the aura mozies along as if this is nothing but a romp rather than an innocent man being haunted. Delightful and definitely a DVD keeper.

I had wanted to see "Benjamin Button" since I found out what it was about. I had read Fitzgerald's short story (the inspiration for this) and wanted to see just how that would transform into a three-hour film. Incidentally, the short story and film have very little to do with one another save for the title and a man named Benjamin Button who ages backwards.

Incidentally again, that curiosity turns out to be the least magical part of this amazing movie. The story begins at the end of the first World War. I imagine had the story began in modern times we would have watched something akin to a Discovery Channel medical mystery in which poor Benjamin is studied by a myriad of doctors and scientists along with a handful of others who also age backwards with every fascination focused on what in the world was going on. Not here. This is a story of a man's life first and foremost. The oddity of his age is merely a detail.

And that is where the magic truly comes in. I happen to be a sucker for the story that inspires me to live life to the fullest. If Benjamin is such a freak, why is it that so much of his life is relatable? Love, adventure, family, loss? I'll step away from the sentimental now. This is a finely crafted gem of a movie with first-rate acting and a direction style that prefers to mosey along with random tangents to backwards clocks and men struck by lightening. Frankly, I walked into the threatre expecting something depressing. Save for the theme of life that always seems to include death and loss, this was quite charming and even funny in spots.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Benjamin Button". It is a beautifully made film with a stellar story. I don't know if it will be up for anything in particular when the Oscars come around, but it was satisfying, haunting, and therefore should deserve something. Bravo, all those involved.

To say that I did not like this movie would be untrue. I am not against it in the least. However, I still don't if I liked it or if I'm just neutral. I'm an elementary teacher and a bookworm besides, which means I absolutely adore the Newbery Award-winning book. It could be that the book purist part of me is complaining.

Story detail-wise, they really did not change things all that much. When I found myself wondering if such-and-such had happened in the book, I had to reply "well, technically yes." There were a few details and character combinations put in for sake of time, I suppose. Then again, a lot of time in this movie could have been better used. I'll discuss that later for I need to return to the book-adaption itself. Yes, technically, for the most part they stuck to the book. This is not to say that things were not out of order, however, or that things were interpreted the same.

The book is a rather quiet-yet-whimsical adventure. The movie splashed in humor and comedy--which is not a bad thing and I did chuckle at some jokes. However, the entire feeling was different and I guess I just can't get past that. And I would continue to try to do so if it weren't for the blasted aforementioned time thing.

Really, what was with the direction of this movie? The storyline was either all over the place, hopping without warning from character to character and setting to setting or we were watching a stunning piece of gorgeous animation that, despite its beauty, was really slowing down the story.

Now I think I owe it to the movie to be positive (again, I don't dislike it at all). The animation is stunning. There seems to be a slight medieval art inspiration to the characters and setting and it turned out wonderfully. I definitely liked looking at this movie.

I also liked the characters, even as different as they were from their book counterparts. I fell in love with this interpretation of Despereaux. He was brave, he was boyish, he was one adorable little big-eared knight. So what if he never got his tail cut off? I liked Roscuro, though the movie was much more sympathetic to him (he was so much more the villain in the book!) I guess I just liked his nautical ways and maybe felt bad for him. I liked the side characters.

And, honestly, if the direction had been a bit different and I hadn't read the book, I think I would have been very much enchanted by this movie.

Maybe this is one of those movies that grow on you. But I saw it last night, and I'm still a little confused as to just what the film makers were thinking.