Reviews

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) is by far my favorite Disney movie of all time. I used to watch this movie on repeat at a young child on VHS. It's a classic Disney productions that manages to excel on many levels. What's remarkable about this move is how well it holds up and how serious it takes it subject matter. Human suffering, personal turmoil, and a drive for scientific and human discovery are weighty themes and this Disney movie pulls no punches. It's cast of actors are fantastic. James Mason's performance as Captain Nemo is brilliant and stoic. his dialogue is poetic and just genius, especially his final narration closing out the movie. Our three heroes portrayed by of Kirk Douglas, Paul Lukas, and Peter Lorre are all uniquely different and interesting. All three characters have different point of views on Nemo's mission and that creates great drama and interesting character dynamics.

On a technical level, this movie is top notch. For a film from 1954, the special effects and under water footage still hold up well. The giant squid sequence is especially a highlight in technical. Also, the action in this movie is also very memorable and it's brilliant in that it keeps building. For example, Peter Lorre and Kirk Douglas run from the beach and escape in a row boat back to the submarine, the Nautilus, then through a genius invention manage to escape the native cannibals, then the Nautilus gets stuck on a reef, a war ship starts shooting at our heroes ship, it gets hit and we go further down into the ocean. Before we can even make rest a giant Squid battles the Nautilus to take on its crew. This is just genius pacing and storytelling on the most primal level.

The direction by Richard Fleischer is solid and swift, the musical score and songs are memorable and stirring, and the production design and art direction are top notch. Overall, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a fun, bold, and exciting adventure movie that is fun for the whole family.

I love this film. Yes, nostalgia has a lot to do with my love, but I don't care. This film came out when I was seven years old and I was in first grade. My mother and father took me to our local movie theater to see it. Harry Potter book mania was in full swing and the phenomenon with the wonderful film series was about to explode with joy. Re- watching the films in order now I can look back on this film with a certain point of view. The first three H.P. films feel like stand alone stories and for the most part set up about 70% of the saga. Now that's was "Sorcerer's Stone is" a wonderful world building movie that keeps getting built upon with each new film.

The greatness of "Sorcerer's Stone" are that it get's everything right 100%. For an adaptation, it follows the book faithfully. Granted there are elements and chapters omitted, but that's the adaptation process. The cast of youthful and seasoned actors are wonderful. Everyone is cast perfectly and each movies the actors grow into their parts with ease and perfection. The Cinematography is colorful and dark, the musical score by the ingenious John Williams is beautiful and magical, the direction by Chris Columbus is sharp as well.

Even though this film is not perfect, no movie really is anyway, I love it. Any criticisms I have with the film generally go with the whole series. Some films do go on too long.The pace in this particular film can drag on. The plot does have an Indiana Jones vibe where it is one even after the other. Some films in the series are plot driven like "Chamber of Secrets" and "Goblet of Fire" and some are character driven like "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "Half-Blood Prince". "Sorcerer's Stone" "Order of the Phoenix" and "Deathly Hallows" are a combination of both character development and plot development. There really is not much for me to nit-pick about this film. It's easy for people to complain about the special effects, but for the film that was establishing the series, the computer generated effects are fine. In my opinion, the whole film series have special effects that range from wonderful to mediocre. But that's just time catching up to the movies.

Overall, this film is wonderful. It's a happy origin tale about the boy who lived and it's full of action, humor, danger, wonder, magic, and most importantly, heart. Fifteen years after its release, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a golden fantasy-family film classic.

On Saturday night I went to see the film Spectre in theaters. The film is the twenty-fourth and newest addition to the James Bond film series. Director Sam Mendes returns from Skyfall, as does Daniel Craig in the lead role. This is Daniel Craig's fourth round as the titular super spy; following 2006's Casio Royale, 2008's Quantum of Solace, and 2012's Skyfall. After fifty-three years, the franchise still strives to give its audiences what they want: action, humor, beautiful people and locations across the globe. One should remember to leave their disbelief at the door before they watch a James Bond film. Do not ask for plausibility when viewing these films. After twenty-three films, do not expect this one to be grounded in any realism. James Bond films are created in complete formalism first and foremost. Starting off with a bang, the film begins with an exciting opening sequence in Mexico. Bond is in pursuit of a man who is part of the organization known as Spectre. Bond is disguise wearing a skeleton costume and skull mask because it is the Day of the Dead. The pre-opening credits sequence is a pulse pounding one that made me tense up. All I'll say is it made me never want to ride in a helicopter ever.

One of films strength lies within its cinematography. Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema, whose other famous works include: Her (2013) and Interstellar (2014). Hoytema lights the film with bold colors. Shot on 35milimeter film, Spectre has a unique texture. There are definitely scenes of high contrast. The actors face's in the Tangier, Morocco sun glistens and both the primary male and female actors look beautiful. The film goes from the night scenes of Rome, to the foggy and the snowy atmosphere of Austria. The lighting of this film gave it a very mysterious and glob trotting vibe. Furthermore, the film used the technique of hard lighting. For instance, there was a scene where the evil Spectre organization was at a round table meeting. Christoph Waltz's face was shown in hard lighting and it wasn't till the end of the scene, we see his face in a reveal. This technique could also be placed under hard lighting, as Waltz's Obenhauser character turns out to be a big shock to Bond. The transition from out of the shadows and into the spotlight is used for dramatic effect. Overall, the film's look has a unique mixture of the colorful 1960's and the present day.

The acting was professional all around. Professional actors all lit up the screen and gave dynamic performances. While some may consider Daniel Craig a star in the film industry, I find him a much more professional actor that uses his fame of James Bond as a way to fuel his other dynamic performances. Craig is what I like to think of as a physical actor, but he has a certain class to him. Like all the Bond actors, there is the need to stretch their acting ability and perform in scenes of tension. In the films torture scene with Bond and Oberhauser, Craig shows acting range. We feel his pain and want to see him succeed. The female leads in the film Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci, both lend the typical performances that are found in Bond films. Surprisingly, Monica Bellucci is only in the film for about ten minutes. Léa Seydoux is the real star of the Spectre. Her character, Madaline, is the daughter of an assassin who was in the first two Craig outings, Mr. White. Both women are strong and completely independent, but also emotionally vulnerable. However, as in most Bond films, the female characters do get subdued by the title hero. All the actors seem to have sense of grounded reality. However, the main villain, Franz Oberhauser, was like most Bond villains, which is appropriately over the top when delivering their lines of dialogue. Unfortunately, by the end of the credits, I did not find him as scary or threatening as Javier Bardem's villain role in Skyfall. Perhaps if he was not in the shadows as much, and got more screen time, then I could have appreciated him more.

Overall, this was a good but not great James Bond film. My complaints of the film were that it was a bit overlong. At 148 minutes, it could have been cut down to the two hour mark. This is an issue I have with all the Craig Bond films, with the exception of Quantum of Solace which is a quick 106 minutes. Moreover, I would have wished to see more of the actor Christoph Waltz. Christoph Waltz is great actor who shines in Quintin Tartrantino films, and should have had more screen-time in Spectre. All I can say is this; if you like James Bond films you will be given what you'd expect. After twenty-four films and fifty three years, viewers are given quality entertainment well worth the ten dollar admission.

Malik Bendjelloul's Searching for Sugar Man is a very absorbing documentary. The film starts with visual poetry, as we see an animated drifter walk the streets of Detroit in the winter time. The film paints a mythical quality of former singer Rodriguez, as two people, Stephen "Sugarman" Segerman, a record shop owner from South Africa, and Craig Bartholomew Strydom, a journalist, took on the task to find the man who unknowingly created a musical sensation that cultivated South African society in the 1970's and 80's.

These two men begin on a quest to find this icon of South African rock/folk music. As the film progresses, we see them search from state to state in hopes of finding Sixto Rodriguez. This proves difficult, as there had been little information on this cult hit wonder. The search to find this man, whose whereabouts were unknown after the production of his only two produced records, Cold Fact and Coming From Reality, was a challenge. It begged the question if the rumors were true; was he really dead? After a long search, the men find more than they are looking for. One of the aspects which I love about this film is the mysticism that's formed around Rodriguez.

Director Malik Benedjelloul builds on the suspense with every interview, and when we finally find Sixto Rodriguez , it is a complete ocean swell of emotions. I have never felt such shock in awe in viewing a documentary before. The film then smoothly unfolds with excitement as every new fact about Rodriguez is presented to the audience by either himself or his two daughters. When Rodriguez gets the invitation to go to South Africa, it is like a dream we finally see this hard laborer get his due and perform live to his adoring fans.

Bendjelloul's Searching for Sugar Man is one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. The film truly has verisimilitude, as the everyone talks to the director with sincerity. It unfolds like a mystery and unearths its colorful psychedelic music onto my generation with ease and excitement.

I love this film. I saw this film at a young age and it terrified me, but in the best possible way. As a thirteen year old and seeing the climax of the film I could not predict the nature of where this film could go. Thankfully, it went beyond stereotypes and gave us peaceful and beautiful aliens who mean no harm. This film gives a majesty to its aliens and leaves its viewers in awe.

Another reason I love this film, beyond the shock, awe, and majesty of the film, is its characters.Richard Dreyfuss's "Roy" is one of my favorite movie characters. He is flawed, but lovable. When he gets his obsessive thoughts, we witness his character breakdown and see him lose everyone he loves. However, we do see him find a new friend and potential life. The characters of Melinda Dillon as the worried mother Jillian and François Truffaut & Bob Balaban as the child like Secret Agents are wonderful. Truffaut brings a whimsy to his portrayal that lets the audience connect with him and the aliens.

On a technical level, this film is great. The special effects, memorable musical score by the great John Williams, cinematography, editing, and direction are first rate.

I don't really have any criticisms with this film. Only that its impact from your first view may lesson the more times you view it. However, you do notice the how how awesome its story telling and technical aspects are the more views you get in. Also, this film may may have you debate what Spielberg's best film it. Someday's I feel its Jaws (1975), C.E.O.T.T.K. (1977), Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) or Jurassic Park (1993). I do love E.T. (1982) and Hook (1991) too. Also, I will say this film will not touch everyone the same way as it did me. For some, its too slow and and lacks's the pop-corn action entertainment from other Si-Fi movies, but its not a "Space Opera" or "Action-Adventure" film, but an examination of blind faith, discovery, and human emotion when faced with something other worldly.

Finally, I would advise watch the Ultimate Edition of this film. I saw the Ultimate Edition first, the Theatrical Edition second, and the Special Edition first. The 30th anniversary DVD & Blu-ray has all three in one set. I'd say stick with the Ultimate Edition as it seems the most complete. I recommend this film to any lover of Science Fiction and lover of great cinema.

Superman Returns (2006), in my opinion, is one of the most underrated superhero films to come out of the twenty-first century. This film came out ten years ago and has never gotten the respect it deserves. One of the best elements of this film is its heart. This film out of all the films that were released from 2000 to 2010 do not match the amount of heart and soul of this film. Batman Begins (2005) does come close. Not many superhero films deal with adult themes of loss, isolation, and returning to a home and finding their place in the world. Finding yourself is never easy, and Superman goes through the a emotional and physical journey throughout.

A lot of people complain about the lack of action, however, I'll take great drama and characterization over action sequences anyway. True, there are about 3-4 action sequences throughout the film, but they are what I consider A+ sequences. The Air Plane rescue, the Bank robbery, and Saving Metropolis from Lex's earth quake, were well crafted for the time this film came out. This film showed Superman accomplish more than the Christopher Reeve era could have hoped for. Note: I love that era as well.

Furthermore, I believe the film has great cinematography by Thomas Newton Senegal and a majestic musical score by X-Men and Fantastic Four composer John Ottman. Bryan Singer's direction is great. Respectful and epic at the same time.

For all the heart and awesome technical aspects of Superman Returns, it does have flaws. My issues with the film are that the film never quite feels right at home till the Air Force One sequence begins. Maybe beginning with Lex Luthor and not Kal-el was not the best choice. Also, there film's third act with Superman lifting an island into outer space feels odd for a third act conclusion. However, these are minor quibbles.

Overall, Superman Returns is a delightful film. The cast shines, being a spiritual sequel to Superman I & II gives the film a nostalgic feel. In fact, I feel this film has a lot in common with look and tone to the two J.J. Abrams Start Trek movies. Loving reverence towards the past for sure is the big similarity. I've always thought Superman Returns was a film that attempted to be the Dances with Wolves (1990) of Superhero films. Big, bold, and emotionally charged with real human emotions. Superman Returns is an unappreciated film that both plays it safe and takes risks. Much like Superman, the film sores and deserves its place among the clouds.

1978's Superman is a wonderful film in every aspect. It is funny, romantic and dramatic. It's a combination of 1970's Disaster films like The Poseidon Adventure (1972), Earthquake (1974) and the Towering Inferno (1974). It has elements of science-fiction films of that decade such as Logan's Run (1976) and Star Wars: A New Hope (1977). I would also make the connection it is similar to the Sean Connery and Roger Moore James Bond films of that era as well. Much like those adventure films, there is a undercurrent amount of humor that goes along with the straightforward take on the character. The humor and heart of the film tonally give the audience a variety of emotions to feel as they embark on watching this huge production.

Much like with Batman (1989), this film proved comic book films can be taken seriously and given the block-buster treatment. Also, like Batman (1989), this film remains a modern classic. In someways the film moves along like a check list of epic objectives for Superman to perform in a film. For example, Krypton, Smallville, Daily Planet characters,falling in love with Lois Lane and meeting Lex Luther.

I won't go into acting and directing as everyone who worked on this film did a top notch job. Richard Donner, Christopher Reeve, Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder etc. do a wonders for this film. My final thoughts on this film are that it is an experience film. I have many memories of renting this from the video store in the early 2000's and remember having excitement when I finally got the DVD for Christmas in 2006, 10 years ago. While the special effects may look dated and the characterizations are no longer considered modern, this film was a game changer for Warner Bros. and on the whole world. This film is definitively one of the greatest films to come out of the 1970's and a classic film essential for anyone who loves superhero's or Superman.