Despicable Me (B)

The creative imagery of this animated, sci-fi flick mostly makes up for the fact that a good chunk of the film is mildly annoying.
With an actually funny funny-voice, Steve Carrel is Gru, a middle-aged super-villain with a kindly mad scientist (Russel Brand) and an army of two feet tall, sausage-shaped minions. Gru has been struggling getting loans from the Bank of Evil (formerly Lehman Brothers) to fund his ultimate sinister plot--steeling the moon (the filmmakers, like Gru, fail to realize that if the moon actually vanished millions would die from the tsunamis and climate change to follow). To pull off his plan, he sets out to steel a shrink ray--only to see it fall into the hands of rival super-villain Vector (Jason Segal as nerd half Gru's age). No characters here have actual super-powers, but Gru thinks with his vast arsenal of gadgets (most of which seem to have actually been invented by his scientist, Dr. Nefario) he can actually get it back. He is sorely disappointed when his heists are blocked by saw blades, lasers, rockets, giant fly-swatters, mechanical fists, catapults, and a great white shark. If only he could get a way in. Wait, what is this? Three orphan girls selling cookies--Vector is letting them into his mansion. All he needs to do is adopt them for a week and have them carry in his cookie-robots, who will promptly let him in, so he can take the shrink ray, so he can shrink the moon, so he can steel the moon, so he will be admired and feared throughout the world, so he can prove his mother was wrong when she mocked his gifts. Seems kind of complex, but Gru is a big picture guy. Except for the fact that he doesn't realize that steeling the moon will kill a lot of people. I guess to enjoy the movie you have to get over that one.
Sadly, the moon thing isn't the only thing you have to ignore in the movie. There is ageism (the guy is so old, he thought the dart gun was a fart gun hahahahahahahahaha), there is not too much in the way of plot, and the kids are really annoying. Really annoying (then again, if you watched ICarly you'd know Miranda Cosgrove, who plays the eldest child, specializes in obnoxious). I know that in real life kids who lived in an abusive foster home all their life would be pretty irritating--but that doesn't mean if you give them high pitched voices it makes them sound cute!
Understand, though, the film isn't terrible. The movie is genuinely charming at times (as Gru discovers he actually likes the little kids), the minions are entertaining, Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight, Sherlock Holmes, Inception)'s very good score, Kristen Wiig plays the foster care headmaster like Dolores Umbridge, and the movie itself can be quite funny (as he leaves the girls' room after tucking them in for the night Gru mentions "Don't let zee bed bugs bite...And there are thousands of them...oh right, and I think there iz something in the closet"). Best of all though is the visuals--the attention to detail, the ingenuity in designing cool weapons, and the playful action sequences. In 3-D, it really is a blast--they are using the technology as much as possible in the most-obvious-yet-still fun ways. The flip-side of this, though, is that people watching in 2-D will be missing stuff--things other recent animated movies like Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 have taken pains to avoid.
Leaving the movie, I was humored--though not truly impressed. My brother, on the other hand, seemed to have taken away some of the little brats' bad behavior--so it might not be the perfect family film.
A fun movie, especially for the 3-D crowd. Not something great mind you--in some ways something bad--but still fun.

Inception (A+)

Infinitely creative and stunningly bold, Christopher Nolan has created a truly intriguing picture. With the vast amounts of concepts tackled in it--with some pretty strong messages mixed in--one has to marvel at Inception, even if none of the themes are as powerful as what you'd see from most A+ films. Rest assured, though, the movie is A+.
It is difficult to explain the plot in detail without spoiling something, but the basic outline is that of a heist movie--set in a dream! Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio of The Departed) is a thief who steals ideas from people's mind as they are dreaming, something pretty daring in and of itself, but he takes an even bigger challenge when he accepts the offer of a genius, ruthless, yet oddly noble businessman (Ken Watanabe of Letters from Iwo Jima): inception, or the planting of an idea in someone's mind (mainly that of a corporate executive, skillfully played by Cillian Murphy). His reason? To get back to his kids. Most people think he is crazy, but he insists it can be done--that he himself has done it before. He assembles a team of experienced mind-benders (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao), but gets more than he bargains for when he recruits young Ariadne (Ellen Page) to be the architect of the landscape for the mission (one of the pluses of subconscious espionage is you can design the world where the interactions with the dreamer take place). Ariadne begins going into Cobb's own dreams, where she discovers her boss has some terrible secrets--ones that manifest themselves as a malicious entity in the form of his beloved, deceased wife (Marion Cotillard).
Writer, producer, and director Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) crafts a story exploring dozens of ideas: among them what is justified for the cause of good (Nolan shows why the answer could be quite a lot), how much people should know, the doubt all people face in spiritual ideas, the doubt all people face when dealing with other people, the doubt all people face when dealing with life, the dangers of dabbling with forces unknown, the salacious temptations of fantasy worlds, the salacious temptations of drugs, the basic personalities in life, the desire to keep living, the mysterious subconscious, and the mysterious mind. All this is wrapped up in a visually enthralling sci-fi action-heist with riveting suspense. Granted, no idea is explored in very much detail, and the movie has more questions than answers (heck, the ending is a giant question), but the fact that it tackles so much, keeps viewers interested, and then makes them think is enormously impressive in and of itself. The synchronized sigh of rapture the audience made as the film ended stood as a stark testament to its merit.
Ellen Page struggles as usual--Ariadne should be lighting up with greed and ambition when she sees the dream-scape (that is after all what powers her character), but instead she stands there passively as if she is dreaming...Ok, bad simile, but you get my point. The other actors though are great--especially DiCaprio (playing the same personality and tone as he did in Shutter Island), Watanabe (riveting scene-stealer), and Murphy (amazing as always, especially in the fact that they haven't cast him as Hollywood's next big star). The whole filmmaking team is incredible, from the art direction to the score (made by prodigy Hans Zimmer who crafted music for Batman Begins and Sherlock Holmes).
The one-of-a-kind Inception is a new classic.

Prediction: 12 Greatest Films for Second Half of 2010 (August-December)

Couldn't decide on ten, but with difficulty could narrow it down to twelve. I particularly feel bad not including the new Conan--but I'm sure you don't need me to tell you about it for you to see it. In Alphabetical Order:

Black Swan--This is a gamble, but writer/director Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler)'s bizarre psychological drama about rival ballerinas (that apparently is inspired by Swan Lake) seems so creative it had to get a spot on the list. Featuring Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, and Vincent Cassel.
Charlie St. Cloud--A tale of miracles and hope featuring a (surreal?) story of a young man (Zac Efron) torn between a beautiful lady (Amanda Crew) and his deceased brother (Charles Tahan) who he plays ball with every day. Directed by Burr Steers (17 Again) based on the story by Ben Sherwood, this one could actually has potential. It seems original and Sherwood's book is critically acclaimed.
The Company Man--Ben Affleck stars as a man struggling with depression after losing his high-salary job and having to work installing dry-wall with his blue collar brother (Kevin Costner). This movie, written and directed by John Wells (executive producer of TV's ER), could be a valuable and inspirational in this time of economic strife--and maybe even beyond. Also featuring Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Maria Bello.
The Expendables--As long as producer/director/star Sylvester Stallone keeps this from being offensive, the combined talents of action legends Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgreen, Mickey Rourke, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Eric Roberts, Steve Austin, Daved Zayas, Gisele Itie, Charisma Carpenter, Gary Daniels, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Stallone himself could make this on heck of an action film.
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest--The finale to the foreign film series based on Steig Larsson's famous book trilogy (beginning, of course, with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), this one is gonna be a doozy. Let's just hope it's good.
Hereafter--Clint Eastwood's sci-fi thriller about the afterlife and death (starring Matt Damon, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Jay Mohr) has both a cool idea and all star team (its writer is Peter Morgan, who did The Queen and Frost/Nixon). This could be the year's best.
It's Kind of a Funny Story--The story of a depressed teen (Keir Gilchrist) who checks himself into an inpatient unit to encounter a zany yet genius doctor (Zack Galifianakis) and a (girl?)friend (Emma Roberts) looks to be truly moving. Directed and written by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, who previously collaborated on Half Nelson.
Let Me In--The Swedish film won as much praise as the book it is based on, so the American remake has much potential.
Morning Glory--Writer Aline Brosh McKenna did a great job on Devil Wears Prada, and this film could be just as poignant. Directed by Roger Michell, it features Rachel McAdams as a determined young woman recruiting a disgruntled TV legend (Harrison Ford) to help save an unpopular news show. The trailer was good, the premise has promise...I think this could surprise a lot of people.
Tales from Earthsea--Like his father, Goro Miazaki made a hand-drawn fantasy epic. With it's beautiful imagery and bold style featuring swords and dragons I am thinking this could be powerful, especially since it is loosely based on Ursula K. LeGuin's critically acclaimed children's book series and Goro seems to be taking after his genius father. Released in Japan in 2006, it makes its American debut this year.
The Tree of Life--Badlands director/writer Terrence Mallick film is completed but still largely unknown. What has been heard makes it sound awesome--it has Brad Pitt and Sean Penn in an epic of a young boy growing up in a small town while somewhere we witness the birth of this universe.
True Grit--The Coen Brothers are making another adaption of the book that inspired the John Wayne classic. This one features Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. I'm thinking it has 100000000000000000000000000000000-1 chances of getting at least a nomination come the Academy Awards.

Standing Ovation (F)

There is no question who Standing Ovation's audience is: tween-age and younger girls. Sadly the disgusting morals and complete lack of artistic touch will make it a terrible influence on their impressionable minds. Fortunately the movie is so revolting to everyone else that few people will encourage them to go.
From Writer/Director Stewart Raffill (Grizzly Falls), Ovation tells the story of a group of tween girls called the 5 Ovations (Kayla Jackson, Kayla Raparelli, Alexis Biesiada, Najee Wilson, and Pilar Martin) attempting to win a music contest. Well at least it tries to--the plot is so convoluted and uninspired it takes effort to notice. The subplots include a very young girl trying to join the group (played by Alana "Wannabe" Palombo, who is a very good singer despite having to play a kid so obnoxious Veruca Salt looks like Pollyanna), another girl (Joie Decarlo) trying to find money stolen from her father, and the 5 Ovations battling a rival group made up of young adults who are delighted to cheat (yeah, it doesn't make any sense).
The film is poorly made and badly choreographed (though the singing is good), but I understand I am not the target audience. What is unforgivable is the laundry list of horrendous morals. For example:
1) If your grandfather is addicted to gambling, show him he can succeed by having him bet on the underdog. It will pay the family bills.
2) If your dad leaves you after being arrested for domestic violence, and goes on to a life of crime that leaves a man so upset he dies, you are being unreasonable and grumpy not to lovingly accept him back to the family if he gives you and everyone in your neighborhood presents without confessing his illegal wrongs.
3) If you are twelve and want something, such as a music studio for a night, it is ok to tell a boy your age that you like him so he can sneak you in after dark.
4) If you are under the age of seven you have a free pass to do whatever the heck you want, including yelling at your parents and smacking nice people with batons.
5) If you fart or barf, this is really, really funny.
6) If a group of twenty-year-olds are sabotaging your performances with "pranks" like ripping your costumes or breaking into the studio and editing your video, calling the cops is overreacting. Instead you should accept the fact they cheated and instead get retribution. A good idea would be to sneak into their house and put fleas in their wigs.
7) Elderly people are made to be mocked, especially when they dance. That's why you get old--so people can laugh at you.
If any of these morals sound bad, this movie is not for you. Standing Ovation? Actually when my seven-year-old brother and I went to see the film (in a theater completely deserted), we actually sat in our seats and booed.

RememberTheLosers.Isn't it identical to A-Team. Here's Why?

There are bound to be similarities between films. After all, with so much going into them a studio tries to make sure they are choosing projects certain to please. However sometimes films become so similar one has to point it out--and wonder why. Take for example two 2010 spy films--The Losers and The A-Team. Is it coincidence they are such a good deal alike? Probably not.
Both movies are of about a group of renowned special ops framed by CIA officials (younger ones, specifically) for betraying their country (the United States). One has a group of six members, the other has a group of 4 plus two allies. Both of the groups are led by an older man, and both include most of the same basic characters: a zany guy who jokes around and could be mentally ill, a female ally who isn't as much a part of the team team as the others, and a man best friend and similar to the group leader (in age, military background, etc.) who turns out to be the traitor. Both films are PG-13 action-comedies who's fight sequences mirror each other--lunatic stunts, helicopter tricks, smuggling oneself in a coffin, fights in storage crates, giant explosions... Even the endings are similar--the teams stop the sinister plot but the bad guy goes free and they are still wanted.
One could say they are knock-offs, but this is not true--they were made around the same time by separate studios (Warner Bros. for The Loosers and 20th Century Fox for The A-Team) and are both adaptions of older materials--one from a 21st century comic book, the others from an 80s TV-show. The Loosers is painstakingly faithful to its source material, but since The A-Team is from a long running TV-show it had to make a few changes while still retaining most of the original's elements.
Now to address why they are alike. The similarities are uncanny, but perhaps they are predictable factors. After all, the similar sequences are both appealing; the spirit of rebellion is prevalent everywhere (plus it makes for some interesting plots if they are framed); the endings are similar likely to set up for a sequel. There are only so many action sequences--they were bound to overlap just because it makes sense for those events to happen and they do look cool. The correlation among characters is harder to explain, but there is likely something appealing about these guys. Perhaps they symbolize something--the older leader experience and old-fashioned heroism; the younger villain new greed of a darker age; the zany warrior a newer, different type of hero for a new, different age; the female sidekick as a way to have a girl in the movie without having them as much a part of the team.
If this is true, one must wonder why The A-Team is so much more successful than The Losers (one was a flop with a domestic gross of only 23 mil. while the other has made 75 mil. in the US to be a mild hit). The A-Team was given a better release date (mid-June instead of late April) probably because its source material was more popular. Also worth noting is the differences--The Losers has more double-crossing, a more aggressive (possibly sexist in its stereotypical behavior) lady, and sex (it has been noted that the most popular movies do not, in fact, have much sensual behavior). Also, in my humble opinion, The A-Team was more creative and better made.
One could dismiss the difference since one film was unsuccessful. Still I think the makers of The Losers had a good idea of what audiences would want; they just didn't capture as much attention as The A-Team.
The similarities between the films really does highlight parts of culture--I think the elements of these light action-flicks is actually a bit of something more. Something a lot of people are catching on to.

Shrek Forever After (B+)

B+

Possibly the best of all the Shrek films, Forever After succeeds because it takes itself and its content more seriously. Of course, it still isn't amazing, but if you get over a few annoying pieces it is a fun and touching comedy.
I have never been a huge fan of of the Shrek franchise because of the cynical nature it entails--one that has (often negatively) influenced society as a whole. Toy Story broke a few of the rules surrounding animated pictures, but the original movie about this green Goliath who loves smashing stuff and doesn't have a puny alter-ego was mostly about bashing the beloved aspects of all-ages stories for a few cheap potty jokes. Yes, the movies have always had their moments, but it ushered in a run of films, TV shows, and all round jokes on fairy tales and classic stories. For example, practically every animated movie has to have a twist (the princess is the frog, its George who is the bad guy). Then they have to put in wink-wink jokes here and there ("Nudge, nudge, know what I mean") and altogether not taking any traditional values seriously. Robin Hood, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan...They all serve to tell a purpose. It seemed to me Shrek was not actually debating their merits, it was more mocking (and teaching little kids to mock) them simply for a quick laugh.
As the Shrek series went on it tried to be a bit more serious, especially in the third one, though that movie was marred by being overall less coherent and funny. Forever After is the first, though, that really plays it straight. Not that it's not fun--it is--it just finds a way to do so without desecrating treasured tales and fables. Furthermore, the film culls out the best parts of the previous ones (the magical love, the friendship with Donkey) and expands it.
The plot features Shrek in an alternate universe he foolishly created with the villainous Rumplestiltskin (Walt Dohrn), being pursued by witches and new fairly tale monsters while meeting very different versions of his friends. The morals, plots, and characters are much more genuine then in previous installments, and the action is upgraded from slapstick to adventure. This good turn in the franchise (that probably is ending, at least for a while) is mostly due to Josh Klausner and Jason Lemke and Director Mike Mitchel (Sky High)--who are expanding on the book character created by William Steig)--but the voice talents (Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, and more) are fun as well.
The flaws of the movie are that they still have some bad, offensive jokes--mainly in alternate dimension Puss in Boots, who is just a very lame insult against people who struggle with obesity. Still the morals and story manage to override this. The one thing that would be a problem--and this a warning not a negative of the film--is that the film is going on the assumption viewers will have seen the first, if not all, of the previous films.
The Shrek story goes out with a band because for the first time it treats its content with respect.
P.S. Just because this is the last Shrek film doesn't mean the franchise is done for. The spin-off Puss in Boots movie still appears to be happening.